Preamble

The House met at Half past two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD SCHEME, KENSINGTON SQUARE (APPEAL)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he can now announced his decision on the appeal of John Barker and Company, heard by his inspector last July, against the refusal of the London County Council to allow them to drive a road through an 18th-century house in Kensington Square; on what grounds he postponed his decision for nine months and without the approval of the Council allowed the appellants to submit an amended scheme; why he has not yet communicated his decision to the Council although he informed the firm on 1st March that unless he heard from them by 15th March he would dismiss their appeal; and whether in future he will announce his decisions on appeals without considering the desire of one party for delay.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): I am awaiting a communication from the London County Council on this appeal and until I receive that I am not in a position to announce a decision. Any appellant is free to submit a new or amended scheme to the planning authority at any time. If he does so, it is reasonable that decision on his original application should, if he so wishes, be deferred, subject to the views of the planning authority. I am not prepared to disregard any reasonable request by an appellant for deferment of decision on his appeal.

Mr. Keeling: Does the Minister realise that Parliament has placed him in a judicial or quasi-judicial position in these matters, and that it is very important that he should not give the impression, as he has done in this case, that he favours one side?

Mr. Silkin: That is the very impression which I hope I am not giving.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: Is the Minister aware that the L.C.C. have scheduled this as a residential area? Is he further aware that the National Trust are engaged in taking action against Messrs. Barker to which Messrs. Barker appear to have no defence whatever, and that their action is being held up by the action of the Minister in not dealing with this question more promptly? Can the Minister give an assurance that he has given no undertaking whatever to Messrs. Barker other than what he has told us?

Mr. Silkin: All these statements are directed to the merits of the application upon which I have to make a decision. It is a fact that John Barker & Company have submitted a second application, and that is now under consideration by the London County Council. Until they give their decision, I am not in a position to act. I can give the assurance for which my hon. Friend asks.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: The Minister has just mentioned a second scheme. Will he explain to me how it is possible to treat two mutually incompatible schemes as a single scheme?

Mr. Silkin: I am not treating them as a single scheme, but the appellants are entitled to have from the L.C.C. a decision upon their second application.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Family Allowances (European Volunteer Workers)

Mr. Prescott: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether European volunteer workers in the United Kingdom are treated as entitled to family allowances for their children in the same way as British subjects.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): No, Sir. There is a special residence test for foreigners who have to show that they have lived here


for three years out of the preceding four years before becoming entitled to family allowances.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Are these European volunteer workers entitled to apply for British nationality, if they so merit?

Mr. J. Griffiths: I presume so, but this is a purely residential test and not a naturalisation test.

Old Age Pensions (Supplementation)

Mr. Boardman: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether, in view of the increase in prices since old age pensions were fixed at the present level, he contemplates any increase or supplementation to these pensions to restore them in terms of goods to at least the level intended.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Pensioners who are in need can apply for supplementation to the Assistance Board. The Board will be under duty to prepare and submit to me fresh draft regulations when the National Assistance Bill becomes law. The draft regulations will be subject to affirmative Resolution by both Houses.

Payment Delays, Kettering

Mr. Mitchison: asked the Minister of National Insurance (1) what is the reason for the delays in payment in the cases of Mr. F. C. Bailey, 82, Princes Street, Kettering, who has submitted weekly medical certificates with his correct National Insurance number on and since 9th March, 1948, and of Miss Betty M. Chater, 77, Nelson Street, Kettering, No. K.W. 547245, who has submitted similar certificates on and since 14th March, and has also claimed payment for a surgical elastic stocking passed by her former approved society; why the Market Harborough Office have not answered Mr. Bailey's letters; whether he is aware that this office has not replied to many letters and has failed to pay benefits; and what steps he will take to expedite the proceedings of that office and obviate delays and hardship;
(2) when and where he proposes to institute an office of his Department in Kettering.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Kettering local office was opened on 1st April largely by

the transfer of staff from the Market Harborough office which had previously had to deal with the work of the Kettering approved societies. My inquiries into the particular cases of alleged delay mentioned in the question are not yet complete and I will write to my hon. Friend giving full particulars as soon as possible.

Mr. Mitchison: Is the Minister aware that these delays have been quite general and that there have been complaints from people associated with this service before, such as the local branch of the National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives and the Amalgamated Council of Friendly Societies in the district; is he also aware that the place where, according to repute, he seeks to establish his office in Kettering is right at one end of the town, a long way from most of the main working-class areas in the place?

Mr. Griffiths: These complaints are not general. I am very glad to say that, generally speaking, we have been paid a tribute for the expeditious way in which we have handled these schemes. These delays occurred at a time when we were transferring the work from Market Harborough to Kettering. Kettering has been a very difficult place indeed, and I would be much obliged if my hon. and learned Friend and the borough council could help to find more suitable premises in, Kettering.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the staffing is adequate to meet the full requirements of this place and other places as from 5th July?

Mr. Griffiths: We are in the process of building up the staff all the time as 5th July gets nearer. There may have been some delay in this place as a result of the transfer from one office to the other. I am making inquiries into this particular case and I hope to clear it up very soon.

Application Forms

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of National Insurance why and by what authority officers of his Department have rejected applications for registrations compulsorily made under the provisions of the National Health Service Act, 1947, by reason only of the fact that these applications indicate in their terms the compulsory nature of the application.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I presume that the hon. Member refers to the form of application for the issue of a contribution card to be stamped under the National Insurance Act from 5th July, 1948. The information on this form is needed in order that a card may be issued and an individual account opened for the person under the serial number borne by the card. I understand that in a few instances applicants who altered the declaration on these forms were asked to complete fresh forms without such alterations. Instructions have now been given that the forms are not to be rejected for this reason.

Married Women (Separation)

Captain John Crowder: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will amend the regulations to enable married women not employed and who have not previously been insured to insure themselves under the National Insurance Act, 1946, if they have been deserted by their husbands, or have left their husbands for due cause, but are not divorced or legally separated.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I doubt whether it is practicable or necessary to proceed on these lines. Separation does not affect a wife's pension rights by virtue of her husband's insurance. Further, it will be open to a woman in these circumstances to enter insurance in her own right by taking up work.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not a general question; that there are specific instances where women have, in fact, been refused and where apparently they are suffering considerable injustice; and that this appears to be an anomaly which was not foreseen when the regulation was made.

Mr. Griffiths: It has nothing to do with the regulation. If a woman is separated from her husband and the husband has insurance rights, she is entitled to benefit.

Mr. Hudson: Apparently the right hon. Gentleman's officers are not aware of that.

Mr. Griffiths: As a matter of fact the Question does not refer to any single instance, and I am not aware of any single instance, where benefit has been refused on those grounds.

Captain Crowder: In certain circumstances if a woman were insured and unemployed, she could come into the scheme, but if she has not been insured before can she come in?

Mr. Griffiths: Not unless she takes up work.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

European Volunteer Workers

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Labour what success has attended his Department's effort to obtain suitable accommodation for European volunteer workers in Heywood.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): Plans are going ahead for adapting the former Government Training Centre premises at Radcliffe and the Warth Mill Camp to meet the needs of the area. The former G.T.C. premises at Radcliffe should provide accommodation for 700 European volunteer workers in Cotton, and plans for adapting the premises are being pressed on with all speed. The Warth Mill scheme is being pursued with Ministry of Works and should provide 500 places.

Mr. Greenwood: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the site he has referred to in his answer will involve a journey of about seven miles for some of these European voluntary workers and will he bear in mind that the labour position in the cotton industry is extremely serious in this respect; and will his Department try to do better than they have done so far?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This matter has been looked into by the regional committee and apparently this is the best that can be done. Our assisted travel scheme is being put into operation to assist these people to get to their employment.

Mr. Greenwood: Will my right hon. Friend look once again into the possibility of using part of the R.A.F. station at Heywood for the housing of European voluntary workers?

Mr. Leslie Hale: Could the Minister say what success has attended his efforts to co-ordinate the requirements of the various Ministries in connection with the housing of European voluntary workers?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This matter has been taken up by the regional committee in Lancashire itself and they can and are taking decisions to cut down any avoidable delay.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Minister of Labour what procedure has been adopted by his Department to enable the return to their own country of European voluntary workers who have come over here either for industrial or domestic purposes but failed to exhibit the necessary standards of workmanship or service and thereby in effect entered the country under a false description.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Where it has been quite clear that a European volunteer worker would not develop into a satisfactory worker, his return to a displaced persons' camp on the Continent has been arranged. I am happy to say that there have been only 23 cases of this kind out of over 50,000 European volunteer workers brought to this country.

Mr. Cooper: Will my hon. Friend see that suitable publicity is given to the procedure followed by his Department, so that workers who prove not to be helpful to this scheme can be returned, without this causing a great deal of trouble to those who employ them?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I think my hon. Friend will agree that it is a small problem. I hope that this Question and answer will give the necessary publicity.

Major Tufton Beamish: Will the Minister bear in mind that it is quite impossible for these people to return to their home country as the questioner asks, since none of them came here from their home country?

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour how many European voluntary workers entered this country in the first quarter of the year; and how many were placed in agriculture.

Mr. Ness Edwards: During the first quarter of 1948 approximately 15,000 European volunteer workers arrived in this country and 6,300 were placed in agriculture.

Mr. Swingler: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the progress of this scheme, particularly in view of the fact of the rejection of German volunteers?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am quite satisfied that we are getting all the people for whom we can provide accommodation.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: is there any limit to this importing of foreign workers and does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that any country that depends for the tilling of its soil on foreign labour eventually goes out?

Mr. Ness Edwards: We have to meet our needs for agriculture this year, and I thought it was agreed on all sides of the House that we should take every step open to us.

Mr. Snadden: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of these workers went to Scotland?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Not without notice.

Training (Conscientious Objectors)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Labour whether persons who were conscientious objectors during the recent war are eligible for grants under the Further Education and Training Scheme.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): If a man satisfies the normal conditions the fact that he was registered as a conscientious objector is not a disqualification under this scheme.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is the Minister aware that ex-Service men who have had their applications rejected feel very sore about this, and can he say how many conscientious objectors are getting financial assistance under this scheme?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot understand the intention of the first part of the supplementary question. It may be that some ex-Service men have had their applications rejected because they did not fit in with the normal conditions of the scheme. They are being treated exactly on the same basis. We do not keep a list of who were or were not conscientious objectors when they make applications.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that every ex-Service man who applies for a grant is given a grant before any conscientious objector gets one?

Mr. Isaacs: I shall deal with this in accordance with the provisions contained in the scheme. If conscientious objectors apply and they are entitled to it, they will get it. That does not deprive any ex-Service man who is entitled to it from getting it also.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

"Buy or Quit" Notices (Complaints)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the position of complaints put forward by recipients of "buy or quit" notices prior to the issue of instructions contained in circular letter No. 6785 of the Scottish Home Department of 7th April; what is the position of tenants on 28th May who have received no decision from the Secretary of State by that time; and how does the landlord of the premises know that a complaint has been lodged against his "buy or quit" notice.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): Complaints from or on behalf of individual shopkeepers which were received before 7th April have been transmitted to the local authority for consideration. Unless in any case a decision is taken to exercise requisitioning powers in order to secure a sufficiency of essential supplies and services, the terms of tenancy will not be affected. Where it is proposed to exercise such powers, the landlord will be informed by the local authority and allowed 14 days in which to make any representations in the matter.

Colonel Hutchison: Would the right hon. Gentleman say how many applications he has received as a result of this circular letter, and whether he is satisfied that the machinery he has set up will be able to handle all these cases in time to allow the individuals concerned to make the arrangements which will be necessary?

Mr. Woodburn: The local authorities are dealing with it at the moment. Certain complaints have reached me—not a great number—and they are being examined.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Is the local authority to make any decision, or is it merely to sift the cases and send on to the right hon. Gentleman those cases in which it thinks action may be required?

Mr. Woodburn: The local authorities are acting as my agent to find out whether there is sufficient cause in their view for the cases to merit consideration.

Mr. Reid: But who makes the decision?

Mr. Woodburn: The Secretary of State makes the decision.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the local authorities are deeply dissatisfied with the terms of his circular letter, because it covers the position of shops alone and not of offices and small business premises, and is he prepared to take any steps to cover the position of the two latter categories?

Mr. Woodburn: The local authorities have been informed that the question of offices is a matter for the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that the position is still utterly unsatisfactory, and will he issue a standstill order and prepare legislation on this question?

Commander Galbraith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the President of the Board of Trade has indicated his willingness to receive representations?

Mr. Woodburn: That is a question which should be put to the President of the Board of Trade. With regard to the other point, standstill legislation is not a practical possibility in time.

Mr. Scollan: Does the Minister think it advisable to tell the Scottish people that he can take no action whatever, because if he did the legislation would also have to apply to England; and is not that why he is doing nothing about it?

Mr. Woodburn: I would not think that advisable or accurate.

Gordon Castle, Fochabers

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland under what terms Gordon Castle, Fochabers, has been leased; for what purpose; and to whom.

Mr. Woodburn: The Commissioners of Crown Lands have arranged to grant a lease of Gordon Castle to Scottish Family Holidays, Ltd., for a term of 39 years from Whit Sunday, 1948, at a rent of £100 per annum. The castle will be used


as a holiday home or for other similar purposes. The rent payable is subject to review after five years.

Mr. Spence: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the lessees of this building will be responsible for a portion of the rates, and so on; further, will he say to what extent this project is being subsidised?

Mr. Woodburn: The project is not being subsidised. I would require notice of the question in regard to rates.

Shop Tenancies (Taylor Report)

Lady Grant: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to bring forward legislation to incorporate the recommendations of the Taylor Report on Shop Tenancies in Scotland.

Mr. Woodburn: As the hon. Member is aware, I am ready to consider the use of requisitioning powers in suitable cases. I can give no undertaking about legislation.

Lady Grant: Can the Minister ensure that the present system will not lead to excessive delay, in order that the tenants will be aware of their true position in plenty of time?

Mr. Woodburn: As the law requires that the tenants should have 40 days notice, much depends on the speed with which the tenants act as to whether they get a decision in good time. The best method of settling all these matters would be for the people concerned to deal with each other fairly and to settle the business by their own normal methods.

Mr. Hector Hughes: What will the Minister do to restore and compensate tenants who may in the meantime be ejected because they are unable to buy their holdings?

Mr. Woodburn: That question does not arise.

Mr. Gallacher: He will do nothing.

Mr. Willis: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by his original reply that we have no hope at all of getting legislation because the present arrangements do not cover very many people?

Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recommendations

of the Taylor Report are held in great disfavour by the shopkeepers of Scotland; further, is he aware that the shopkeepers are looking to him for help and think that the requisitioning order will greatly help in this campaign throughout Scotland?

Cement Supplies

Mr. J. L. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered a letter from Messrs. Alexander Hall & Son, Builders, Limited, stating that shortage of cement seriously retards their output of Cruden prefabricated houses and affects all housing throughout Scotland; if he has investigated the facts of this complaint; and what steps are being taken to relieve the shortage.

Mr. Woodburn: I am aware that there has been a general shortage of cement in Scotland and that some housing contracts have been affected. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works has, however, recently made arrangements substantially to increase the amount of seaborne supplies to Scotland, and as a temporary measure supplementary supplies by road are being arranged.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into consideration the fact that I have here a telegram from Dumbarton which says that the management of the firm manufacturing aluminium houses has told the workers that after November there will be no more orders for the houses, and that that means that about 3,000 workers in my constituency will be thrown out of work?

Mr. Woodburn: That is another question of which I would require notice.

Commander Galbraith: Is the Minister aware that the shortage of cement is always recurring in Scotland, and will he take steps to see that the Minister of Works deals with the matter more expeditiously than he has done recently?

Mr. Woodburn: What is more satisfactory, the Minister of Works is taking the steps to deal with it expeditiously.

Lady Grant: Is the Minister aware that I put down an exactly similar Question and I was informed that the Secretary of State for Scotland could not reply to it, but that the Minister of Works could? Therefore, it was transferred to the Minister of Works and it is now Question


No. 83 on the Order Paper. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he could not answer my Question?

Mr. Woodburn: I do not control the distribution of cement. That is a matter for the Minister of Works. I have consulted with the Minister of Works who has agreed to see that cement is brought to Scotland immediately.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Stump Socks

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Pensions (1) if he is aware of the present difficulties of pensioners who require stump socks and of the inadequate of the issue of six socks per year; and what steps he is taking to increase the issue in the future;
(2) if he will make a statement on the shortage of white woollen stump socks; and when his Department expects to have reasonable stocks.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Buchanan): I am aware of the present difficulties and I am doing all I can toward making larger individual issues of these articles. Additional contractors have been obtained and with the help of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, through the Disabled Persons Corporation, plans have been made to use the services of disabled persons in Remploy factories. I am glad to say that production is improving and as soon as the position allows I will increase the issue of socks to individual pensioners.

Statistics

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Pensions what was the total number of N.C.Os. and O.Rs. on the pensions in payment roll as at 31st March, 1948, and the annual cost of their pensions; how many of these men received unemployability allowance, hardship allowance, constant attendance allowance, education allowance and clothing allowance, respectively, as at 31st March, 1948; and what was the annual cost of each of these allowances.

Mr. Buchanan: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

I regret that figures for 31st March, 1948, are not yet available. The total number of pensions in payment to N.C.Os. and other ranks at 31st December, 1947, was 696,327 at an approximate annual cost, including wives' and children's allowances, of £39,168,000. Particulars of the additional allowances in payment at that date are as follows:


—
No. of recipients.
Approximate annual cost.




£


Unemployability allowance
7,610
406,500


Special hardship allowance
1,742
49,600


Constant attendance allowance
4,100
240,000


Education allowance
300
6,300


Clothing allowance
32,686
102,900

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Pensions how many N.C.Os. and O.Rs. were classified as 100 per cent. disabled as at 31st March, 1948; and what was the annual cost of their pensions.

Mr. Buchanan: I regret that figures for 31st March, 1948, are not yet available. The number of N.C.Os. and other ranks in receipt of pension at the 100 per cent. rate at 31st December, 1947, was 45,940. The approximate annual cost of their pensions was £6,809,000.

Mr. De la Bère: In view of the very great problem which confronts the Minister, would he allow his thoughts to rise to the height of the situation, because if he does not do something, nothing will be done?

Mr. Buchanan: All I can say is that I find great difficulty in elevating my thoughts as high as the hon. Gentleman has elevated his, but I will do my best to follow his example.

Wing-Commander Millington: Will my right hon. Friend examine most carefully that supplementary question and his answer, and if the inference is that the amount of money should be reduced will he resist it strongly?

Mr. Buchanan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can take it that there will be no reduction so long as I am at the Ministry.

Claims (Disease and Injury)

Dr. Haden Guest: asked the Minister of Pensions what was the number of claims made for pension and allowed for pension, respectively, by members of His Majesty's Forces in 1947, showing the number made on account of disease and injury separately.

Mr. Buchanan: Approximately 61,300 claims in respect of disease and 19,10o in respect of injury were settled in 1947. The numbers allowed were about 49,500 and 18,000 respectively.

Dr. Haden Guest: asked the Minister of Pensions what was the number of claims made for pension by members of His Majesty's Forces in respect of diabetes, cancer, leukæmia and other diseases classed as constitutional during the year 1947.

Mr. Buchanan: There were 303 claims in respect of cancer and 299 for diabetes. Leukemia is included with other blood diseases in a group for which the total number of claims was 88. If the hon. Member will let me know what other diseases he particularly has in mind as being classed as constitutional, I will endeavour to give him the information he desires

Dr. Guest: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what diseases are normally classed as constitutional for pensions purposes?

Mr. Buchanan: This takes me out of my depth. It is a difficult matter. I see the hon. Gentleman's point, and I think it would be best if he came to my office and had a talk with me. We will try to supply him with every possible bit of information.

Dr. Guest: I shall be delighted.

Special Hardship Allowance (1914 War)

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is now in a position to make any announcement about the application to partially disabled pensioners of the 1914 world war of the provision for special hardship allowance for 1939 world war pensioners.

Mr. Leslie Hale: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider extending to partially disabled pensioners

of the 1914 world war the existing provision for special hardship allowance for partially disabled pensioners of the 1939 world war.

Mr. Buchanan: I am very glad to be able to announce that, as from 1st May, 1948, a special hardship allowance will be payable, on application, to a partially disabled pensioner of the 1914 world war, whose war disablement has at any time after 1st July, 1945, rendered him incapable and likely to remain permanently incapable of following the occupation which he regularly followed for a reasonable period up to 1st July, 1945, and incapable of following any other suitable occupation of equivalent standard.
I am also pleased to add that, as from 1st May, the maximum rate of special hardship allowance will be 20s. a week instead of 11s. 3d. a week as at present. Allowances in payment to pensioners of the 1939 war will be reviewed without application and the appropriate increases granted.

Mr. Amory: While I would like sincerely to congratulate the Minister on this most helpful step, which will be of very great assistance in relieving hardship, may I ask him whether he is satisfied that the date applied will enable the particular object to be attained?

Mr. Buchanan: To say that I am satisfied would be carrying it too far. All that I can promise is that it will alleviate the position. My own mind is never fixed, and, if it is found not to be the case, we will look at it again; but it is, of course, a great improvement.

Mr. Hale: Is the Minister aware that the concession will be very greatly appreciated—though we shall still ask for more—and will bring very real and generous help to most hardly-pressed members of the community?

Mr. Chetwynd: Will my right hon. Friend give an indication of the number involved in this concession?

Mr. Buchanan: I do not think I could do so without notice.

Mr. Willis: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these arrangements will be of assistance to men who, because of their age, have to take less remunerative jobs than those they had before?

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, Sir. I think it can be assumed that, had a man not been disabled, age alone would not have prevented him from carrying out his own occupation. These points will be considered sympathetically, and I hope that in such cases we will be able to pay the pension.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Marriages (German Women)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War how many German women have married British soldiers in Germany; how many have been permitted to come to Britain for this purpose; and whether any steps have yet been taken towards assisting German women who have children by British soldiers to secure consideration of their claims on such men.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): The total number of marriages of British Army personnel to German women registered by Headquarters, B.A.O.R., up to the end of February was approximately 3,400. I understand that the total number of German women admitted to this country for the purpose of marriage to British subjects to the end of March was 4,694, but I cannot say how many of the husbands are in the British Army. As regards the last part of the Question, the position remains as stated in replies given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself to previous Questions by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the disparity between these girls who have had children by British soldiers and subsequently married them, and others who were promised marriage but were never married and have been left to bear their burdens alone? Can he say something to expand the promise made yesterday which gave some hope that this situation would be alleviated?

Mr. Shinwell: As I have indicated, the matter is under consideration.

Field-Marshal Montgomery (Press Statement)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War if the statement issued by Field-Marshal Montgomery to the Press, on returning from his recent

visit to Germany, regarding his negotiations with Marshal Sokolovsky, was made with his authority.

Mr. Shinwell: This was, I understand, an impromptu statement to reporters made by the Field-Marshal on arrival at Northolt, and, naturally, I was not consulted in advance.

Air-Commodore Harvey: As this statement was made only two or three days after the unfortunate accident to the Viking aircraft, would it not have been better for the Field-Marshal to have said nothing on that occasion, and will the right hon. Gentleman ask him in future to be very careful before making statements to the Press?

Mr. Shinwell: There was nothing in the Field-Marshal's statement that could be regarded as objectionable. It was a quite friendly statement and, as I happen to have read it, I endorse it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the fact that this was a friendly meeting at a time of great international tension, will the Minister encourage our generals to have further friendly meetings?

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the impression given by the statement was that everything was perfectly all right, when, as a matter of fact, it was not, and that General Robertson in Berlin was left to clear up the mess?

Mr. Shinwell: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to imagine that some serious statement was made, I had better read it, as it was reported in the Press. This is what the Field-Marshal said:
It was a very good dinner, with excellent company. I had a long talk alone with Marshal Sokolovsky after dinner. Everybody was most friendly. Why should they not be?
May I add—Why net?

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister commend the Field-Marshal for his moderation, and also commend his conduct to General Robertson, who was loudly cheered on the other side of the House for an anti-Soviet speech?

Earl Winterton: Would the right hon. Gentleman make quite clear that he entirely agrees with the statement made by the Foreign Secretary that he—the


Foreign Secretary—is the sole medium for discussions on high policy with Russian officials?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware of the statement made by my right hon. Friend. There was nothing, I am quite sure, in the statement that precludes Field-Marshal Montgomery, when he is abroad from having conversations with officers of other nations.

Land Requirements

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the approximate acreage in each command of the land required for training.

Mr. Shinwell: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the approximate acreage in each Command provisionally required by my Department for training areas.

Mr. Keeling: I am much obliged.

Following is the statement:—

The total of 648,000 acres referred to in paragraph 32 of Cmd. 7278 of December, 1947, has been provisionally allocated to Commands as follows:—






Acres


Northern
…
…
…
162,000


Southern
…
…
…
195,000


Eastern
…
…
…
72,000


Western
…
…
…
149,000


Scottish
…
…
…
70,000






648,000

Terrorist Attacks, Palestine

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will describe the steps taken by the anti-tank unit, whose camp was raided by Jewish terrorists at Pardus Hanna recently, and by other units, to recover the arms stolen from them, to capture the vehicles used by these terrorists and to kill or capture those responsible for the attack; and what success has attended these efforts.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War how many sentries were on duty at the Pardus Hanna Camp of the 12th Anti-Tank Regiment when it was attacked by Jewish terrorists on 6th April; whether they had anti-tank weapons immediately available; and what anti-tank obstacles there were to prevent the camp gates being rushed.

Mr. Shinwell: The unit had four sentries on duty at the gate. The obstacles were perimeter wire and a drop-bar entrance. It must be realised that entry to the camp was effected by subterfuge. The terrorists arrived in Army and police vehicles dressed as officers and other ranks in correct British R.A.S.C., R.E.M.E. and Palestine Police uniforms. The unit was preparing to move and was expecting R.A.S.C. transport to arrive. Officers and soldiers made for the spot instantly the alarm was raised. Although no anti-tank weapons were immediately available covering the gate, on hearing the shooting officers in the car park ordered self-propelled anti-tank guns to be set up, and move inwards. This caused the terrorists to abandon the attack, and withdraw. As they withdrew they were engaged by small arms, and subsequently by 17-pounder high explosives, which killed one terrorist and wounded an unknown number. The military and civil authorities were at once notified and the whole area surrounding the camp was systematically searched, but this was hindered for about an hour by fire from nearby orange groves. A curfew was imposed in the neighbourhood. It seems clear that the unit concerned and other available units took all conceivable steps open to them.

Major Beamish: The Secretary of State has not answered the part of my Question which asked him what success has attended the efforts to recover the arms captured? Can he answer that?

Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid I have no present information about that, but inquiries are still proceeding into the details of this incident.

Mr. Low: In view of the fact that it had been known for some time that Jewish terrorists were in possession of British vehicles, both fighting vehicles and transport vehicles, were not steps taken in all camps to check vehicles as they approached to see whether they were hostile or friendly vehicles?

Mr. Shinwell: I have no doubt that appropriate measures are taken, but it is quite impossible in every case to detect persons who are dressed in British Army uniforms or in Palestine Police uniforms when effecting an entry to these camps?

Brigadier Head: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in view of the difficulties presented by the methods of warfare adopted, why no system of passwords is in force at camps in Palestine?

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot answer that offhand, but I imagine that these matters are well within the knowledge of experienced military advisers in my Department.

Mr. Wyatt: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any system by which officers and other ranks carry identity documents which are examined?

Mr. Shinwell: I am unable to answer that question, but I will take note of it.

Mr. Low: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that this sort of thing may happen again, or is there now some system of recognition, whether by password or otherwise, which might prevent this sort of thing from happening again?

Mr. Shinwell: While every precaution will be taken to prevent a recurrence of this incident, I can give no assurance that it could not happen again.

Major Bruce: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is possible to introduce a system of changing daily recognition signs, which could be of use in these cases?

Mr. Shinwell: We will look into that.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is perfectly obvious to any trained soldier that the merest elementary precautions, Which should be taken in a case like this, were not taken, and as to his statement that the camp was in process of being packed up, is he not aware that to any trained soldier that is the most dangerous time of all? Why was not something done in accordance with ordinary military training?

Mr. Shinwell: Experienced soldiers are in command in Palestine and are just as competent as their critics to undertake these things.

Mr. Scollan: In view of the increasing uneasiness amongst people here, is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that the people in charge are competent, because people here do not think they are?

Mr. Shinwell: Whatever my hon. Friend may think, I am satisfied of the competence of the people in control.

Mr. J. H. Hare: Would the Minister make it quite clear that if, in his opinion, this matter was handled efficiently, the commanding officer of this unit, who was killed, was, in his opinion, entirely blameless so far as the responsibilities of a commanding officer are concerned?

Mr. Shinwell: So far as I know, no blame has been attached to the commanding officer.

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War what instructions are in force in Palestine regarding the carrying of arms by military personnel, by night and day, whether on or off duty.

Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War what instructions have been issued to strengthen the security of camps, arms, ammunition and individual soldiers in Palestine since the attack on the Pardus Hanna Camp on 6th April.

Mr. Shinwell: All officers and other ranks in Palestine carry arms when outside defended areas, whether they are on or off duty. They go about outside camps in parties of not less than two by day and four by night. If circumstances necessitate it, further precautions are taken by increasing these numbers or restricting movement after dark1altogether. Since the attack on 6th April all units have been ordered to mount an inlying picquet in addition to the normal guards on gates and perimeters and to cover all road exits with anti-tank weapons tactically sited as well as light machine guns.

Mr. Low: While recognising the importance of these belated precautions, ought not these things to have been done before? Is it not outrageous that they have not been done before?

Mr. Shinwell: Every soldier gains by experience.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: While appreciating what the right hon. Gentleman said about every soldier gaining by experience, which soldiers recognise, may I ask him whether there is not perfectly clear proof that, although the people in charge may know their job, on this occasion they fell down badly on it; and what is he going to do about it?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not called upon to take disciplinary action in a case of this sort.

Earl Winterton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the directive to which he referred in answer to a supplementary question of mine the other day, in which he said that the military authorities had been given full power to take every possible precaution, includes a directive to the troops that they are to treat these terrorist gangs exactly as they would an enemy in war time and to inflict the maximum of casualties upon them?

Mr. Shinwell: Directions to the troops are in the hands of the Commanding Officers.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is it not clear, from the right hon. Gentleman's replies to this and previous questions, that the British Army in Palestine is operating under a general restraint exercised by the War Office?

Mr. Shinwell: In the circumstances in Palestine, it is desirable occasionally to exercise restraint.

Hon. Members: Now we know.

Mr. Erroll: Is it permissible for arms to be carried loaded?

Mr. Shinwell: I imagine that if arms are carried they are loaded.

Major Legge-Bourke: In so far as security of camps is concerned, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no administrative units are stationed alone in these camps and that there are always fighting units there for the purposes of protection?

Mr. Shinwell: I can give no assurance on that.

Brigadier Head: Is the Secretary of State aware that it appears he is not entirely versed in what is going on regarding instructions to troops? Next time he comes to the House can he be a little better acquainted with his subject?

Mr. Shinwell: No Secretary of State for War can be fully versed in all the details and the precise instructions given to every soldier by commanding officers, but we are well aware of the general position.

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will describe the attack made a few miles south of Tel Aviv on a British troop train on 12th April; what steps were taken by those travelling in the train and by other units to kill or

capture those who carried out the attack and to recover stolen ammunition; and what success has attended these efforts.

Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a full statement about an attack on a British troop train near Rehoveth in Palestine on r2th April.

Mr. Shinwell: There was no attack on a British troop train on the date mentioned. There was, however, an incident in which armed Jewish terrorists held up the crew of a rail car and stole four berets and battle-dress blouses and two automatic weapons.

Major Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he had acquainted himself with the facts last week, when he failed to deny the fact that it had been reported, these Questions would not have been put down?

Mr. Shinwell: I agree that if the hon. and gallant Member had acquainted himself with the facts, this Question certainly would not have been put down.

Mr. Low: Are we to take it that the attack was made on an unguarded truck, or was the truck guarded and no steps taken to ward off the attack?

Mr. Shinwell: All I know is that it was an attack on a rail car.

Mr. Low: Is it not clear that the right hon. Gentleman again knows nothing about this?

Commander Noble: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I asked a question on this particular incident last week and he replied, rather sarcastically I thought:
Hon. Members do no seem to be aware that there are military operations in Palestine."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 773.]
From his answers to previous questions and to this, does it not seem more fair to apply that to the right hon. Gentleman himself?

Mr. Shinwell: In view of some of the questions, I have not been quite as sarcastic as the occasion justified.

Mr. Wyatt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on this matter, and on others in which there has been criticism, all these things are well within the competence of


the military authorities in Palestine and are in no way the fault of the War Office?

Earl Winterton: In view of the obvious anxiety on both sides of the House about this matter, would the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing a White Paper explaining what exactly is the authority possessed by the Commander-in-Chief in Palestine to take all possible hostile action against those who murder our soldiers?

Mr. Shinwell: The Government and hon. Members on this side are as much concerned about the position of our officers and men in Palestine as hon. Members on the other side. I can hardly imagine that a White Paper would be of any value. Instructions have been issued from time to time to those in command in Palestine and we have every reason to believe that, in the very difficult circumstances, those instructions have been fully implemented.

Major Beamish: Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that our withdrawal in Palestine is being, and will be, conducted as a military operation, unhampered by back seat drivers on the Government Front Bench?

Explosion, Skegness

Commander Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the death of two schoolboys at Gibraltar Point, near Skegness, on 5th April, who were killed by an explosion when playing with an unexploded trench mortar bomb; why this area has not been cleared of dangerous missiles; and what immediate action he proposes to prevent a recurrence.

Mr. Shinwell: Whilst I deeply sympathise with the relatives of these schoolboys, I have no evidence that this particular area was ever authorised by the War Office for training purposes, and it has never been under requisition by my Department. Accordingly, the question of "clearing" the area has not previously arisen. The nearest War Department requisitioned land is at least a mile away from the scene of the accident. I am, however, having the matter thoroughly investigated and will write to the hon. and gallant Member.

Commander Maitland: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that he is taking immediate steps to prevent a recurrence of an incident such as this in that area?

Mr. Shinwell: That area is not under my immediate control.

Interrogating Officers, Germany

Wing-Commander Millington: asked the Secretary of State for War whether rubber truncheons are part of the normal equipment of interrogating officers of the British Army in Germany; and how many have been issued since the end of the war.

Mr. Shinwell: Rubber truncheons are not now an authorised issue. Some were, however, issued to 21 Army Group before the end of the war. Some of these may still be in use. I have, however, given instructions for them to be withdrawn.

Stores Depot, Long Marston

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an assurance that all classes of material, steel and timber, machinery, implements and tools which are being allowed to deteriorate and in many cases become useless at the Royal Engineers Depot, Long Marston, shall be disposed of and made available to the industries in need of such stores and material.

Mr. Shinwell: This depot contains stores of which a very large proportion are needed to provide and maintain reasonable standards of accommodation and amenities for the Army at home and abroad. These stocks are being steadily reduced by regular issues. It is the object to declare surplus any item which, although needed for Army purposes in the near future, may become useless before issue. In deciding what is to be released, therefore, the possibility of deterioration and future requirements have to be balanced. Reasonable precautions are taken to prevent deterioration, consistent with economical expenditure on storage accommodation.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are at present, apart from requirements, very large surpluses which could be put to some useful purpose?

Mr. Shinwell: We have large surpluses, but we have to consider these matters carefully because of the need for future stocks.

Stored Ammunition, Scotland

Mr. Snadden: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will announce in regard to the ammunition and explosives stored in the depot in Perthshire and contiguous counties, the details of the schedule of removal or disposal of the stores intimated by Scottish Command to the B.B.C. for the purpose of the news talk broadcasts by the Scottish Region on Wednesday, 25th February, 1948; whether this schedule is being adhered to; and what is the anticipated date of completion of the operation.

Mr. Shinwell: I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT about this matter.

Mr. Snadden: Can the right hon. Gentleman say now what will be the date of completion of the operation?

Mr. Shinwell: No, but we are proceeding very rapidly with this.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department informed me that this stuff was still being sent from England to Scotland, and when I asked why, I was told that it was with a view to its being dumped in the sea? Is there no sea round England as well as round Scotland?

Following is the statement:

The B.B.C. were informed that (1) the roads from Trossachs to Aberfoyle and Trossachs to Callender were being cleared of ammunition at the rate of 250 tons a week, and that given average weather it was hoped that all the ammunition would be cleared by the end of March; (2) 250 tons a week of demolition explosives were being cleared; if this rate were maintained complete clearance would be effected in April; (3) approximately 500 tons of ammunition were being sent away for breaking down weekly and preparations were being made to dump some 2,000 tons of dangerous ammunition not able to be broken down.

Progress to date is as follows:—(1) The first of these roads has now been completely cleared and the other has been

cleared except for some thousand tons of serviceable ammunition which must be kept, and which will be moved as soon as the necessary manpower and transport are available. (2) Certain difficulties have been met in the clearance of demolition explosives. Consequently it is not possible at the moment to give a definite date for completion. (3) The breakdown programme has been maintained and indeed the target for the end of March has been exceeded. It has not yet been possible to start dumping, but preparations for doing so are well advanced.

During the first three months of this year approximately 20,000 tons have been cleared from this depot. It is hoped that the depot will be completely clear of ammunition by the end of next year.

Crown Hill Barracks (Lawn)

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Secretary of State for War what quantity of petrol has been consumed and what Service and civilian labour employed in conveying turfs from Dartmoor and Coypool to Crown Hill Barracks for the purpose of making a lawn; during what hours the men have been engaged on this work; and what extra remuneration was paid to both Service and civilian personnel who were engaged on the job during their free hours.

Mr. Shinwell: No extra petrol has been consumed for this purpose. The turf, which had to be removed in the course of constructional work at Coypool, has been carried in the same vehicle as the soldiers and others employed on the constructional work when they are transported back to Plumer Barracks, where they live. The work of making the lawn has been carried out by men at the barracks in their spare time.

Mrs. Middleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the information he has given, which directly negatives certain local rumours, will be warmly welcomed in the locality?

Court Martial Procedure (Committee's Report)

Mr. Arthur Allen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Lewis Committee on Court Martial Procedure has yet reported; and whether the report will be published as soon as possible after its receipt.

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air and I have just received this report, which we have not yet had time to study. After studying the report I will consider in consultation with my colleagues when it will be convenient to publish it, but I am not in a position to make any forecast at the moment.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of amending the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act some time before the Annual Bill ordinarily next comes before the House, so that improvements can be brought into operation as soon as possible?

Mr. Shinwell: That requires very careful consideration.

Empire Hotel, Buxton (Squatters)

Mr. Molson: asked the Secretary of State for War when he will enforce the interim injunction against the squatters occupying the Empire Hotel, Buxton; and whether he is aware that conditions in the hotel endanger the health of the residents of Buxton as well as that of the squatters themselves.

Mr. Shinwell: The enforcement of the interim injunction would not solve the problem in this case, as it is not effective against all the squatters at present in occupation. Final judgment was signed on 15th April, 1948, and I am advised that steps are now being taken which, it is hoped, will result in the early removal of all the squatters from this hotel. I am aware that the sanitary conditions in the hotel are very bad, but such action as was possible in the circumstances has been taken to assist the local authority.

Mr. Molson: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this matter has been dragging on ever since 21st August last? Will he try to ensure that property requisitioned by the War Office does not become a menace to public health?

Mr. Shinwell: This has been a very difficult problem, because I understand that as soon as an injunction was taken against some squatters, they disappeared, but other squatters took their places.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR (CHAPLAINS)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, in the past two and a half years, the Reverend F. Branney, of Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex, has incurred expenses totalling £26 in providing spiritual ministrations for Roman Catholic prisoners of war at a camp near Tillingham; that there is no Roman Catholic prisoner padre at this camp, which is more than five miles from the nearest Roman Catholic church; and if, in view of the fact that these expenses cannot be met from the camp welfare fund, since the prisoners themselves do not agree to such reimbursement, he will reconsider his previous decision not to meet them from public funds.

Mr. Shinwell: It has been the policy since we first had prisoners of war in this country not to provide chaplains at public expense nor to bear the cost of spiritual ministrations for prisoners who desire them. This was the reason for the decision not to meet the expenses in this case from public funds. The prisoners of war at this camp have now voted a sum of £35 from their welfare fund for this purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIALISED INDUSTRIES' BOARDS (SALARIES)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement as to the future salaries and emoluments of the chairmen and members of the boards of nationalised industries, in view of the uncertainty which at present exists on this subject.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No alteration in the salaries of chairmen and members of the boards of socialised industries is at present contemplated.

Mr. Gammans: Do I understand that the threat made by the Secretary of State for War is just another irresponsible statement?

The Prime Minister: I understand from a report I have seen that the Secretary of State for War expressly said it was not a threat.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great many people do think that these payments are rather too generous?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any alteration in the emoluments of the Lord High Commissioner for the Church of Scotland' is in view?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMAMENTS MANUFACTURE

Mr. Elwyn Jones: asked the Prime Minister whether, when considering the measures proposed for the nationalisation of the steel industry, His Majesty's Government will include in the necessary legislation proposals to nationalise the manufacture of all armaments.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The manufacture of armaments is not confined to undertakings comprised in the steel industry. My hon. Friend's suggestion, therefore, does not appear to me to be well conceived.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the time has now come to prohibit the private manufacture of all armaments?

The Prime Minister: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTIVITY

Mr. Erroll: asked the Lord President of the Council what progress is being made by the Committee on Industrial Productivity; and when its first reports may be expected.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Committee on Industrial Productivity held its first meeting on 4th February and, in all, the Committee and its four Panels have met 24 times this year. A wide range of possibilities for increasing industrial productivity is being examined, and on several of these promising progress is being made. Several new research projects have already been set in hand on the advice of the Committee. I am unwilling to direct the Committee's energies into preparing a formal written report at so early a stage, but I can assure hon. Members that the machinery provided by the Committee is proving effective.

Mr. Erroll: As such slow progress is being made, should not this Committee set a good example in high productivity?

Mr. Kirkwood: Let hon. Members opposite take their coats off and get on with it.

Mr. H. Morrison: The assumption of the hon. Member is entirely false. Slow progress is not being made: it is moving quite quickly.

Brigadier Head: Then this is an exception.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Paymaster-General (Tours)

Mr. Prescott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent tour of Africa by the Paymaster-General; and what advantages have accrued thereform.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): I explained to the House on 3rd December the general nature of the duties which the Paymaster-General is now undertaking. During January, February and March my hon. Friend visited the Sudan, Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda, Northern and Southern Rhodesia and the Union of South Africa. He was accompanied by officials of the Board of Trade and Ministry of Food, two of whom also visited Nyasaland in addition to the territories I have named. My hon. Friend discussed at length with the South African and Colonial Governments the question of trade between the Union and the Colonial territories, and had valuable discussions in all the territories he visited with business and trading interests on current problems of trade. His main work, however, consisted in discussing on the spot numerous projects for economic and industrial development, including additional production of minerals, timber and farm products of many kinds. He has presented to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a full report on these subjects, which is now being considered in detail by the Government. The tour and the report which has resulted from it are an essential part of the planning of accelerated economic development in Africa.

Sir W. Smithers: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what the trip cost?

Sir S. Cripps: That is another question.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Did the Paymaster-General find a groundnut while touring Africa?

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the Paymaster-General's recent tour through Africa, he will arrange for him to undertake a similar exploratory tour in South America.

Sir S. Cripps: The Paymaster-General is still engaged on matters arising from his recent visit to Africa. He is not free at the present time to undertake an exploratory tour in South America, and I should not like to commit him to any particular date in the future.

Mr. Erroll: Does the Lord President of the Council, then, still withhold his permission for this trip?

Sir S. Cripps: There is no question of anybody withholding his permission.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the practice of His Majesty's Customs and Excise to charge Purchase Tax on gross value of parcels sent by post from wholesale suppliers to their customers, where such gross value includes postage charges; and under which provisions of the Finance Act such purchase tax on postage may be levied.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. The reference asked for is the second provision of the Eighth Schedule to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940.

Mr. Hare: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why notices 78, 78c and 78L, which were received by retailers at the end of March or beginning of April, were distributed, in view of the fact that his Budget proposals on 6th April made these documents useless; and what was the cost to the taxpayer of the printing and distribution of these notices.

Sir S. Cripps: Notice No. 78L was issued to traders responsible for collecting Purchase Tax (not usually retailers) on 7th April. It explains the changes in the tax made by the Budget Resolution of the previous day by reference to the pre-Budget provisions as set out in the other notices mentioned, which, therefore, remain in force, and are far from useless. The cost of printing these three notices amounted to £1,430.

Government Securities

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for payments under his capital levy proposals to be made in British Transport, British Electricity and Treasury 2½ per cent. stocks at par.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: Do we take it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to acknowledge that the issue of these stocks was a ramp, and that the shareholders of the old companies were robbed by the British Government?

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount Government securities have depreciated in value since Treasury 2½ per cent. stock were issued at par to the latest available convenient date.

Sir S. Cripps: The daily Stock Exchange quotations already provide this information.

Sir W. Smithers: Is it not obvious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not wish to have the figures given in HANSARD? Is not the enormous depreciation the measure of the false policy of his predecessor?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

ITALIAN ELECTION (MEMBERS' TELEGRAM)

Mr. Eden: Is the Leader of the House yet in a position to make a statement about the Motion appearing on the Order Paper in the names of the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) and other hon. Members:
[That a Select Committee be appointed to investigate into and report on the circumstances in which a number of names of Members of this House were allegedly appended without their approval to a telegram sent on 16th April to Signor Nenni wishing him "outstanding success" in the forthcoming Italian elections.]
I understand that yesterday the right hon. Gentleman undertook to give consideration to that Motion.

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I have given careful consideration to the points raised in the Motion, and to the points that were raised yesterday by hon. and right hon. Members. Yesterday, I thought it would not be right to express a view straight off, before I had seen the Motion on the Order Paper. I have studied the Motion, and I am bound to say that the more I think about it, the less I am inclined to think that this is a matter which warrants the appointment of a Select Committee. I think it is a matter which is best dealt with otherwise, in a way which is customary in Parliamentary parties.

Mr. Eden: I hesitate to intervene in this matter, as I was not present when it was dealt with yesterday. It is true to say, of course, that certain aspects of this question are entirely domestic but there is one aspect which, certainly in my experience, has never arisen in this House before: that is the accusation by one Member of Parliament that other Members of this House have had their names attached wrongfully to a document sent abroad. That seems to me to be hardly a matter which concerns only one party, but rather a matter which concerns the House. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered that aspect of the question.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I did. By the way, I ought to have said before, that I am sure hon. Members in all quarters of the House are very glad to see the right hon. Gentleman back after his illness, and would wish me to express our pleasure that he looks so well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I quite see the borderline point—if I may so describe it—which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned; but I still think that this was a matter which arose from a certain political angle and in certain political circumstances; and I think on balance that, if it is to be dealt with, it had better be dealt with domestically by the political party concerned. I do not think that it warrants the appointment of a Select Committee.

Mr. Eden: I thank the Leader of the House for what he has said about me personally. I should only like to add that on the particular aspect of the question which I mentioned, we on this side of the House would desire to reserve our position.

Sir W. Smithers: Might I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is the difference between an hon. Member putting down without authority names to, say, a Motion on the Order Paper, and an hon. Member putting down without authority names to a document sent to a foreign Power antagonistic to this country?

Mr. Speaker: That is a quite hypothetical question which I am unable to answer.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I would venture to put this point before you. The reputation of this House and the honour of every individual Member are, in some measure, prejudiced and attacked by the forgery of Members' names to important documents. Should not this be a matter for discussion by the whole House?

Mr. Speaker: That is not my affair. I cannot order the House to discuss anything one way or the other. I am the servant, not the master of the House.

SOCIALISED INDUSTRIES (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this would be a convenient moment for me to ask you to give a Ruling on the principles governing the rejection by the Table of two Questions which I sought to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport relative to the exercise of his powers under the Transport Act.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. The hon. Member has asked me why I refused to allow three Questions which he desired to ask of the Minister of Transport. One of these Questions concerned the directions on notice boards on certain trains. That Question seemed to me to be clearly a matter of day-to-day administration, in which the Minister has said he will not interfere. Another Question was, in its original form, concerned with advertisements for cheap tickets, and seemed to me to be no more a general question than several relating to the issue of cheap tickets which the Minister refused to answer on 2nd February of this year. The hon. Member then—when, I think, he knew that this second Question was not in very good form—tried to make the Question more general. In its revised form the Question offended against another


Rule, and became hypothetical, because the hon. Member was unable to cite the basis of his Question without making it apparent that the matter complained of had been ruled out as a matter of day-to-day administration. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to allow any of the three Questions submitted to me by the hon. Member.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am grateful to you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, but I should be grateful if you could qualify the matter perhaps a little further, relative particularly to the last words of your Ruling. There is a class of subject on which it is possible to draft a Question referring to a particular matter. As I understand your Ruling, that is now ruled out because it refers to a particular matter. Then I understand that a Question is ruled out if, while on the face of it raising a general question, it appears to be so general because the particular facts are not given. I should be grateful for your guidance on how it is possible to ask any Question on the issue of a general direction by the Minister, in view of the two apparently conflicting principles to which you have just given expression.

Mr. Speaker: Of course, if I am satisfied that a Question relates to day-to-day administration, under the custom and Rules of the House it cannot go on the Order Paper. That is by the custom of the House, and by Rulings of previous Speakers.

Earl Winterton: Does the Ruling which you, Sir, were good enough to give in reply to a point which I put before, apply to what you have just said—namely, that what is out of Order in a Question, is not necessarily out of Order in a Debate; and, therefore, it would be open to any hon. Member to give notice that he would raise these matters on the Adjournment Motion?

Mr. Speaker: The noble Lord is perfectly correct. All these matters are quite in Order on an Adjournment Motion or on Supply. Of course, the Rules governing Questions are very much tighter than the Rules of Debate, and these matters are not ruled from the competence of the House; they can be raised on the Adjournment or on other occasions.

Sir John Mellor: On the point of day-to-day administration, under the Act the Minister has absolute power to obtain from the Board any information he desires. Therefore, is not this House entitled to require that the Minister shall obtain that information and convey it to the House?

Mr. Speaker: I have allowed several Questions in order to try to put out feelers, to see how far one could or could not go. Once a Minister has refused to answer Questions on account of their being matters of day-to-day administration, I have no option. If the hon. Baronet is arguing that because the Act refers to "the national interests" everything can be asked, I should myself hesitate to agree. I do not think that is in accordance with the Rules of the House. Indeed, to agree might get me into trouble with the courts, because what is in the national interests as the interpretation of an Act of Parliament, is not a matter for me but for the courts.

Sir J. Mellor: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the paragraph you have in mind makes no reference to the national interests. It gives the Minister an unqualified right to obtain information from the Board. Therefore, has not the House an equally unqualified right to obtain it from the Minister?

Mr. Speaker: I think that question was dealt with in the last Debate by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). I am bound by a Ruling of my predecessor. If a Minister has once refused to answer a Question, I am not allowed to permit it to go to the Table.

Sir W. Smithers: Is not the weakness of all this that the Minister is the deciding factor? The Minister is really a dictator, because he can decide whether the Question concerns the day-to-day working. Why should that dictatorial power be left in the hands of the Minister?

Sir Arthur Salter: I should like to reinforce that question. I quite understand that in a number of cases your view, Sir, could coincide with that of the Minister in saying that such and such a matter ought not to be asked. But suppose that in a particular case you, Mr. Speaker, took the view that such a Question was in Order; are you thereupon precluded in future similar cases from allowing such


a Question if, in the meantime, the particular Minister has refused to answer such a Question? Surely, in the last resort you are the deciding authority on admissibility, and not the Minister.

Mr. Speaker: I should have to have the authority of the House for that. I cannot exercise my choice in allowing Questions as I feel inclined. What seems to me to be a reasonable guide for the future is the way Questions would have been allowed in 1938. I am quite certain that the three Questions put down by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) would never have got past the Table in 1938.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Could that very important Ruling be made more clear, because, surely, under nationalisation of the railways, there must be wide questions of policy about which we should be entitled to ask the Minister of Transport Questions which we should not have been able to ask in 1938, because the Minister was not then responsible for the railways?

Mr. Speaker: I was referring only to Questions on day-to-day administration, and not to matters of general policy. Questions concerning such matters as tickets and notice boards on trains would never have been allowed in 1938.

Mr. Erroll: As Questions are frequently permitted which refer to the day-to-day administration of private firms, in respect of which no Minister is responsible, why should the boards of nationalised industries be protected and private firms not protected? There were two such Questions yesterday, one of which concerned ball-bearings manufactured by a private firm.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the firm comes under the control of the Minister of Supply. I do not think that the Table would make a mistake about that.

Mr. Pickthorn: If I may refer to the first half of your original Ruling, Mr. Speaker: if I got it right, what you said was that the Minister said that the matter raised was a matter in which "he does not interfere." What I want to be quite sure about is that that is what excludes, that class of Questions—the mere fact that the Minister says that he does not interfere; or is it necessary to be the fact that he does not interfere; or thirdly, is it necessary to be the fact that he should not be able, under the Statute, to interfere?

Mr. Speaker: The answer was that, in practice, he does not interfere. He has said quite frankly that he is not interfering in practice with day-to-day administration, and he is not answering Questions on day-to-day administration. I am bound by that, and unless the House choose to pass some Resolution, I cannot do otherwise.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Could not this hard-and-fast rule be suspended this week, because it is the week of the Women's Conservative Association Conference in London, and they have been getting dreadfully mixed up about notice boards and tickets, and have been contacting Members opposite?

Sir W. Smithers: In 1938, to which you made reference, Mr. Speaker, the only nationalised industry was the Post Office, about which we could ask Questions on the most minute details, down to why the telegraph boy had a dirty face.

Mr. Speaker: That is not quite correct, because the Postmaster-General never answered Questions about the programmes of the B.B.C., and that was accepted by the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 24th March.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

3.46 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: On a point of Order. On the last occasion when we were considering this Bill in Committee I raised a point of Order with the Temporary Chairman, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), as to whether a document which was quoted by the Home Secretary was a State paper, and if so, whether, in accordance with the established Rule, it should not be laid on the Table. The hon. Member who was then in the Chair did not, of course, have notice of this point of Order, and he ruled:
If a Minister quotes from a paper, or a State paper in the House that paper should be laid on the Table, but we are not in the House now; we are in Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1948; Vol. 448, C. 3127.]
I accepted the Ruling of the Temporary Chairman, although it did not accord with my recollections of previous Rulings given by your predecessors, Major Milner. I later consulted Erskine May, and I found some support for my point of view. Accordingly, later in the Session I raised this matter with the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, and I asked if he would cause a Ruling to be given. I do not propose to trouble the Committee with all the precedents, dating back to 1808, but I would point out that those interested in the matter will find an admirable account given to the House on 31st May, 1938, by Viscount Stansgate, better known as Mr. Wedgwood Benn. I think this matter is sufficiently important to be raised at this stage, and I venture therefore to inquire whether it would not be convenient for you, Major Milner, to make a statement now, assuring us that documents quoted by a Minister are liable to be required to be laid on the Table not only in the House but in Committee.

The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Member for raising this point. The simple question is whether a paper from which quotations are made in the course of a Debate in Committee of the Whole House

should be laid on the Table of the House. The difficulty which very naturally occurred to the mind of the hon. Member who was at that time temporarily in the Chair was the analogy of the courts. It seemed somewhat anomalous that documents quoted in Committee of the Whole House could be required to be laid before the Horse itself, which is theoretically a different body. I am not aware that that technicality has ever been considered before. I have now had an opportunity to consider it. The purpose of the Rule is to make the document concerned available to the body before whom it is cited. In my opinion, a document presented to the House should be available to a Committee of the Whole House. I am of the opinion, therefore, that the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House may properly rule that a Minister, quoting a document in Committee of the Whole House, ought to lay that document on the Table. In my view, his position in that respect does not differ from that of Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy-Speaker when in the Chair of the House. I hope that that may clear up the matter. I ought to add that the question does not now arise in the case of the particular document read by the Home Secretary because it is now recorded in HANSARD.

Mr. Butcher: I thank you, Major Milner, for your guidance and for going to the trouble to give this Ruling, which reinforces the Ruling given by Sir Dennis Herbert in 1938.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: I apologise for not having given notice of this, but Standing Committees should also be given some thought in regard to this procedure. Perhaps a Ruling could be given in this respect on some other occasion.

The Chairman: That matter does not arise today, but no doubt could be dealt with by the proper authority on some other appropriate occasion.

CLAUSE 13.—(Effect of register, etc.)

3.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I beg to move, in page 16, line 6, to leave out from "ground," to "otherwise," in line 7, and to insert:
of his being or having on the qualifying date or the date of his appointment, as the case may be, been not a British subject or not of full age or.


The purpose of this Amendment is to bring the wording of the Clause into line with that of two earlier Clauses—Clause 1, which relates to the entitlement of an elector to vote, and Clause 10, which relates to the entitlement of a proxy to vote by extending the reference to incapacity on the qualifying date, or, in the case of a proxy, at the time of his appointment. It seems clear that Clause 13, which deals with the same topic, should, in declaring incapacity to vote, also take account of the two dates, and the new words which we propose to insert have that effect.

Mr. Henry Strauss: The words which it is sought to put in seem to me to constitute almost a record in difficult and clumsy draftsmanship. The words which it is proposed to insert run as follows:
of his being or having on the qualifying date or the date of his appointment, as the case may be, been not. …
The separation of "having" and "been" in this fantastic sentence seems to exceed the limits of poor draftsmanship to which we have descended in this House. With a little trouble, the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers could carry out their purpose and carry it out correctly in the English language. Instead of "on the ground of" they might have put it "on the ground that he is not or was not on the qualifying date. …" It is quite easy to put it in that alternative manner and to make it run easily. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, if he is right in the general purpose of his words, to look at the language again.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I had somewhat the same difficulty as the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), but he is a lawyer and I am not. He is entitled to criticise draftsmanship from the legal point of view, and I am not. I regret this desire on the part of draftsmen, when we get to the use of the verb in its perfect form, to try to get phrases between parts of the verb "to have," or "to be." I will for my own sake consider whether it is possible to put this in some such form as the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested. I think that the purpose of the Amendment is quite clear.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: It is curious phrasing to read "having … been not a British subject" when it might read "not been a British subject."

Mr. Ede: I think that difficulty can be got over.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Binns: I have an Amendment down to this Clause, which has not been called, in page 16, line 5, leave out from "be," to "he," in line 6, and insert "entitled to vote if," to which, perhaps, I might be allowed to refer. The Clause provides that the person registering as a Parliamentary voter should not be prevented from voting even if he is under age. In the past, there have been certain enactments, which in this Bill have been repealed, and which in fact did prevent any person who by inadvertence had been included in the register, from voting. If an infant in arms were brought to the polling booth, that infant could be disqualified, but under this Bill, Section 7 of the William III Act and Section 7 of the Ballot Act, 1872, have been repealed—
That no person whatsoever being under the age of one and twenty years, shall at any time hereafter be admitted to give his voice for election of any Member or Members to serve in this present, or any future Parliament …
Those Acts were previously taken into account by the returning officers and infants were not allowed to vote. I speak on behalf of the Metropolitan Borough Standing joint Committee, which has 28 town clerks normally concerned with these elections, and it appears to us that what has been done is merely to give grounds for the rejection of the vote on scrutiny, instead of rejecting the vote prior to it actually being carried out, which seems the most sensible and reasonable way of doing it.

Mr. Ede: It is true that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Binns) has raised a point concerning which the law is being altered. It is all very well to say that this would permit an infant in arms to vote, but it also prevents that from happening., If the presiding officer—it is not the returning officer who is involved—at the poll, let us say at a quarter to nine


at night, suspects that a person coming forward is an alien who has wrongly got on to the register, or is a person who was 20 years and 11 months on the qualifying date, and that person wanted to start an argument with him as to whether he was rightly on the register or not, he might hold up a long queue of electors who were desiring to vote, some of whom might be excluded from voting while this adjudication was going on. I cannot think that that would be right. It may have been all very well in he days of His Majesty King William III, for whom the hon. Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) has such great veneration, when the number of electors was very small, and, in addition, the poll was open for several days and the voting was at the hustings. We are now living in very different times. I think that the proper thing to say is that the person whose name is on the register has an entitlement to vote at the election. If the name has wrongly got on to the register, it may very well be a ground for petition and scrutiny, but I suggest that, in a practical world, it is necessary to remove the old law and to substitute the new.

Mr. Binns: In a practical world it has actually happened that infants have found their way on to the register. I am only concerned about the presiding officer in the cases of infants still in swaddling clothes, and of his own safety. I am willing to leave this matter, under the circumstances, to the right hon. Gentleman if he prefers to have that sort of thing happening.

Mr. Nicholson: If the name of the person voting was on the register as being 20 years and 11 months old, that might provide grounds for a petition. Surely, he has a right to know where he stands.

Mr. Ede: The vote of one unqualified person in an election in which the majority was 10,000 or 15,000 would not in itself lead to the election being questioned.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Nicholson: The Home Secretary is no doubt basing his remarks on majorities as small as, say, 25. One hon. Member, in fact, was elected to Parliament by a majority of only four. Elections will be

rendered unfair; people will go round making minute investigations, asking the ages of ladies and committing other indiscretions. It is dangerous to pass a Bill which would lay open the way for the maximum amount of complication and uncertainty.

Mr. Ede: The fact that an unqualified—

Mr. Nicholson: Not qualified, but on the register.

Mr. Ede: The fact that a person whose name was on the register and who was unqualified but voted would happen in an insufficient number of cases to affect the result of the election. That has always been a ground for a petition.

Mr. McKie: I should like to say one or two words by way of criticism and to ask one or two questions of the Home Secretary. I do not think that any hon. Member on either side of the Committee will deny that the whole purpose of this Clause involves a somewhat radical departure from previous electoral procedure. The whole purpose of the Clause is to dispense, if necessary, with the casting vote of the returning officer. It is provided that, in the event of the numbers between candidates being equal, the returning officer shall not in future, as in the past, have recourse to the casting vote, but that the tying candidates shall proceed to draw lots. That is a point to which I take serious exception. The Home Secretary, on reflection, will probably see that he may be in danger—to put it no higher than that—of running counter to the wishes of a good many people in electoral and political bodies. After all, the casting vote allows for cases where the numbers are equal, and one hon. Member has referred to a few members elected to the present Parliament by a very narrow margin. I can think of two hon. Gentlemen who were in this position. They were, I think, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Gandar Dower) and the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) who were elected by margins of less than 10 votes. This shows that, even in these days of universal suffrage, a draw is not out of the question.
In the past the decision who was to be the winning candidate to be returned to Parliament in the event of numbers being


equal has always been left to the returning officer. It has been left to his discretion to say how he thinks the question should be dealt with. Although it is entirely within his province how he should exercise his casting vote, it has, in the past, undoubtedly been laid down and well defined that, in the event of the sitting Member tying with his rival, the casting vote should be given in favour of the sitting Member.

Mr. Ede: Mr. Ede indicated dissent.

Mr. McKie: I notice that the Home Secretary shakes his head, but, in favour of the maintenance of the status quo, I can say that if one of the two winning candidates belongs to the party in possession of the seat—hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee will have sympathy with what I have said—in the past the returning officer would have given his vote in accordance with the maintenance of the status quo, in order that the party which had previously held the seat should continue to hold it. If the Clause is agreed to we shall be very seriously interfering with that well-accepted principle because, in the future, lots will have to be cast.
My first question to the Home Secretary is to ask him how he proposes that these lots shall be cast—by tossing a coin or by cutting through the pack? I am amazed that anything which savours of the gambling principle should be agreed to by a right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the Committee. In the past he or his colleagues have said that they will never be in favour of anything approaching a State lottery. I am not in favour of anything like a State lottery, but I am amazed that the Home Secretary, who. I understand, is a Nonconformist—I understand there is such a thing as a Nonconformist conscience, although I do not understand much about Nonconformity myself—recommends us to agree to the gambling principle in the form of tossing coins, whatever other method it may be, in the event of numbers being equal at an election.
The Home Secretary would be well advised to tell the Committee why he and the Government have seen fit to incorporate this Clause in the Bill. It goes further because, even in the case of an election petition, Subsection (2) provides that the casting of lots in the event of

a petition shall be resorted to by the court. It will be very much more difficult for a court to cast lots than even the two individual candidates, who are equal rivals, in the event of no election petition being presented. That is another matter on which I hope the Home Secretary will have something to say when he replies.
I think I am perfectly entitled to say, on arguing the Clause in general, that, once a principle has been agreed to in this Committee, it seldom stops there. This was made clear—I say this by way of illustration—with regard to the recent provision for the Special Contribution in the Budget Resolutions. If the Committee sees fit to agree to this Clause being added to the Bill, we might quite easily seriously infringe upon the whole principle of the exercise of the casting vote in general. It might even be that in future somebody seated in the Chair, or occupying an even more exalted position, might not be able to exercise his casting vote. For the benefit of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee, who are perhaps not as familiar as I am with Parliamentary procedure, I can say that three times in my experience have I seen the casting vote exercised by the occupant of the Chair. I should be very sorry to agree to anything which would make for the infringement of the casting vote in general, particularly as far as Parliament is concerned. I should hate to think that in the future we should see the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition—the occupant of the Chair being barred from exercising a casting vote—spinning coins or casting lots across the Table. I hope that the Home Secretary will have something to say also about these matters.
I realise that at present the right hon. Gentleman is in a difficult position and recently was unable to give a very clear decision. I refer to the special Clause in the Criminal Justice Bill. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman's conscience is somewhat tender on these matters in coming to a decision—perhaps that is why he is such a ready accessory to this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt remember that: "Conscience doth make cowards of us all." I hope that he will show better reason this afternoon than he did the other night for the incorporation of that other Clause.

Mr. Marlowe: I would like to reinforce one point which has been made by my hon. Friend. I hope that the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary will explain what procedure they envisage. It is a serious thing to pass a Clause which is going to allow the spinning of a coin or cutting through a pack of cards, or something of that sort, by which a Member shall be decided. The election of a Member to Parliament is a solemn procedure, and I cannot help feeling that a tight decision ought not to be dealt with in that way.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to help us also on the question of the election petition. I may have misunderstood the Clause, but I want to be quite clear. Is it really suggested that when a disputed contest comes before a court of law, the judge of the court is to settle the matter by lot? I really cannot contemplate such a position. The function of a court of law is to determine as between the parties that appear before the court; to determine where lies the right as between the two contestants or litigants. A most undignified position will be created if, when two contesting parties in an election are brought before the court, the only function of the judge is to say, after spinning a coin, which of the two it has been decided shall come to Parliament. I cannot believe that that is the position, but I would like to know just how far the matter really goes. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will let us know what is to be the function of the court under the Measure as it now stands.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I think there is very little doubt what the Government have in mind in drafting this Clause. I take it that they are anxious to relieve the returning officer—who often is the mayor, the town clerk or somebody of that kind—from being placed in the difficult and invidious position of having to cast a vote when the candidates have an equal number of votes. I doubt very much, however, whether this Clause is an improvement on that situation. I know, of course, that it caters for changes which are extremely unlikely to happen with electorates of 50,000 or more people, but, as one or two Members have pointed out, we have come very near to that of late. One hon. Member pointed out the case of a majority of only four votes; I

think that in one case the majority was as low as two in the last General Election.
This brings me to the point I wish to make. When we are discussing unlikely possibilities we must envisage the possibility of a dead-heat between three candidates; such an event is not impossible, and there might also be the case of four candidates with equal numbers. I would like to reinforce the request that we should be told exactly what procedure is to be followed. We read in Holy Scripture of the casting of lots. I have never been quite clear how it was done then, although I imagine it was not done by cutting through the pack. There must, however, have been some method of doing it. It is most undignified to envisage an hon. Member sitting in this House for four or five years because a coin has come down heads instead of tails; or because the dice has fallen in a certain manner; or because, in going through the pack, the King has been drawn instead of the Queen. How difficult it would be for an hon. Member in that situation to get up in Parliament and claim that his constituents had sent him here to do this, that and the other. His constituents would not have sent him at all—it would be the Ace of Spades or something of that kind which had sent him. Such a procedure would be beneath the dignity of Parliament.
Paragraph (b) of Subsection (2) deals with the election petition. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) when he put this point just now, suggested a procedure which I confess had not entered my mind. Am I right in thinking that what the Government have in mind is that, after the result of an election petition, certain votes will be ruled as invalid and, in consequence, change the result? After all, an election petition generally takes place when a candidate is aggrieved because his opponent has got in by ten or twelve votes and he feels there has been some improper procedure which has deprived him of his seat. The matter goes for a hearing, and the petition is heard. As the result of the petition, the votes are ruled out. That is how I read the, matter, and I would like to know if I was right or not.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The casting of lots in elections is not unknown. The Act of Union with Ireland laid it down that if at any election


of an Irish representative Peer there was a tie, the tie was to be resolved by the casting of lots. That Act was passed in 1801. In local government, the casting of lots for the determination of results is not unknown. In fact, it may be described as a fairly frequent practice. I will give the Committee an example which fell within my own experience.
In 1927, I was the Charter Mayor of Epsom and Ewell. I had to conduct the whole of the municipal elections because, as the Charter was new, there were no aldermen. It was prescribed in the Charter that if there was no contest in any ward, or if in any ward there was an equality of votes, the seniority of the councillors concerned was to be determined by the casting of lots. In each ward, three members were to be elected. The one at the top of the poll was to be in office for three years, the one in the middle for two years and the one at the bottom of three successful candidates for one year. Curiously enough, in one ward there was equality of votes between the second and the third of the successful candidates. In two or three of the wards—I cannot quite remember but in at least two—there was no contest.
The names of the people whose voting results were equal were written upon strips of paper. The strips of paper were placed in a closed box and were shaken up. I then drew out one slip of paper, in the case where there was equality of votes between the second and third candidate. The man whose name was on the slip of paper was declared to have been elected for two years. The man whose name still remained in the box was there for one year. Where three names were concerned, the name first drawn out was elected for three years, and the second for two years. The man whose name was not drawn out was elected for one year. I did, in fact, draw his name out, to give him the satisfaction of having had a run for his money. That is the procedure. Anyone who has been a member of an urban or rural council will know that the practice is not uncommon in local government.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: In the case cited by the right hon. Gentleman the representation of the wards was not affected. The proposal in the Clause determines the verdict of the electors.

Mr. Ede: The curious thing is that there may be equality of votes at an election between the last two candidates. Let us suppose there are three seats, and candidates numbers 3 and 4 receive the same number of votes. It has fallen to the returning officer to determine the result. I ought to read what the Carr Committee said on this point. They said:
Should there be equality of voting, the returning officer for a Parliamentary election, if a registered elector for the constituency, may give his casting vote.
There is at the moment no provision as to what happens if the returning officer is not an elector for the constituency. The Committee went on:
At a local government election in England he can do so, whether or not he is an elector.
In these days it is invidious to put upon a returning officer the obligation of saying, as between one man and another, whether one or the other should be elected. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) asked me to consider the returning officer. At one time the hon. Member suggested that the officer should decide in favour of the member who last sat, and then in favour of the representative of the party who last sat. Let me take the hon. Member's own case. Suppose, at the last election there had been a tie in his constituency between himself and somebody else. The hon. Member was in the last Parliament, and, therefore, was the sitting Member, but he was not the nominee, I understand, of the party that he represented in the last Parliament. It is clear that if we attempt to adopt any form of—

Mr. McKie: The right hon. Gentleman singled me out in order to provide himself with an illustration. I am quite clear about what I intended to say. The returning officer has complete discretion how he may use his casting vote, but there is a long-established custom which lays down that he should give his casting vote either to the sitting Member or to a representative of the party which last held the seat. One candidate may have both those qualifications.

Mr. Ede: The report published on 27th July did not appear to indicate that. In Parliamentary elections there has been no tie since 1918. I recollect, as a student of old poll books, that there was one tie between 1805 and 1918; but it is a contingency for which we must provide. I think it is better, in order to preserve the


attitude of complete impartiality on the part of the returning officer, that he should not have to contemplate at any time what he will do in the event of there being a tie. It is far better to take the matter out of his hands. No one has ever impugned the action in local government to which I have alluded. I do not know whether a tie ever arose between two Irish Peers and that lots had to be drawn. At any rate, it shows that the matter has been thought of in previous years.
I am asked also what is to happen in the event of a petition. I gathered from what the hon. Member for Galloway said that any issue which went to the courts would be decided by lots. That is not the case. What will happen is this. There is a petition. The votes have been scrutinised. The court comes to the end of considering all the votes that have been put in jeopardy, and an equality of votes has been recorded. The court is supposed to exercise complete impartiality as between parties. It would be putting too much of a strain upon a court to suggest that they should then have to make what would be a party decision. At this stage there can be no question of corruption or of improper conduct. If there had been, it would have invalidated the election and we should not be in the position of having to consider a tie.

Mr. Marlowe: What has been the position when a tie resulted from a petition?

Mr. Ede: So far as I know no case has arisen. I do not think that in living memory a tie has resulted from an election petition. I would not like to say from memory what might have happened before.

Mr. Marlowe: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what should happen in such a case?

Mr. Ede: I will try to find out between now and the next stage of the Bill. It is highly undesirable that the courts should be involved in reaching what is almost inevitably a party decision in these matters. I therefore suggest that there is nothing undignified in casting lots; that it has been tried in local government; that it has been enacted in the Act of Union with Ireland; and finally, in the words of the Carr Committee:
we prefer a decision by lot in such cases both at Parliamentary and at local government elections.

They say much more that I have not quoted, but this quotation will complete the whole of the quotation from the paragraph:
This places"—
that is, the giving of a casting vote—
an invidious responsibility upon the returning officer. He is not obliged to discharge it, but if he does not, the election is void.
Presumably, in the case of a Parliamentary election where the returning officer was not a Parliamentary elector in the Constituency, the election would be void. That is the kind of thing which most people would desire not to see occur. I suggest to the Committee that the proposed procedure is perfectly reasonable and that it has been carried out without any violent criticism.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): Would the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to one small point relating to Subsection (2)? I share his view that it would be putting a most onerous obligation upon the election court to give them a casting vote. If an equality of voting resulted, it seems an equally undignified task to put upon two judges of the High Court that they should cast lots. Imagination boggles at the prospect of one learned judge tossing up a coin and the other learned judge calling "heads." If we pass this provision I believe—I speak subject to correction—that this will be the first time that the obligation of casting lots has ever been placed upon the High Court. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider between now and the Report stage the possibility of providing that where the decision of the Court on matters concerning an election results in an equality of votes it should be remitted to the returning officer and that if lots have to be cast they should be cast by that officer. It seems more consistent with the dignity of all concerned that that duty should fall upon him.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Since the Clause contemplates the court deciding the matter by lot, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has consulted His Majesty's judges in the matter? They may have objections.

Mr. Pickthorn: My prejudices are rather in favour of lots. Everybody talks about how democratic he


is; if we want to be democratic the right way is that everybody should be elected by lot, and have done with it. If there is an equality of voting, I am surprised that it has not occurred to the Home Secretary before that the really right thing is that the election should be declared void. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to regard that as a reductio ad absurdum, but there is a good deal to be said for the view which I have put forward. If the election is so near, it ought to be run again. My imagination does not boggle like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) at judges having to toss and not knowing how to do it. It would be perfectly proper for you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to do it now, once and for all. I see no reason why we should not invite the Chair to draw lots to say whether in such a case as we are discussing the person whose name comes first upon the ballot paper, or last upon the ballot paper, should not always be deemed to have one vote more than were actually cast for him. Therefore, Major Milner, you would be tossing once for all now. Whatever indignity or vice there might be would rest upon the collective shoulders of Parliament. The judges would have no difficulty in future. They would simply know that wherever there was a tie they must always give the extra vote either to the man whose name came first or to the man whose name came last, as the case might be.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I will consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). Since I spoke last I have heard that in the event of there being an equality of votes on a petition, at present the election is declared void and a fresh election has to be held. I am bound to say that I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) that a second election should be held. I think that in such circumstances it is generally desirable that a result should be achieved on the election that has already been held, and I think this Clause provides for that. I have not consulted the judges as to whether they would be willing to participate in this, but I have no doubt that if Parliament imposes a duty upon them they will carry it omit.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 15.—(Return or forfeiture of candidate's deposit.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 17, line So, at the end, to insert: "by all the candidates."
The Clause to which this Amendment relates provides that a candidate's deposit shall be forfeited if he is found not to have polled more than one-eighth of the total number of votes polled. It has been represented that there may be some doubt whether the number of votes polled included only valid votes or other ballot papers as well. There was a phrase in the previous Act of 1918 which might have been thought fit to cover this point, but which has been omitted because it was really designed to deal with two-member constituencies, and it is, therefore, no longer relevant in this Bill.
The words which it is now proposed to add at the end, "by all the candidates," are thought to make the matter quite clear, because obviously if a vote has been polled by a candidate, and has been allotted to a candidate, that must be because it has been accepted. That phrase could only apply to valid votes, and would exclude those which had not been accepted and which had not therefore, been polled by any candidate at all.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: As this Amendment is an attempt at clarification, I would like to ask, so that we shall know where we stand, what is the objection to the phrase "one-eighth of the valid votes." It seems to me to be a much fairer description of what we mean.

Mr. Keeling: I would go further and suggest that these additional words do not in the least clarify the Clause. If it is doubtful whether the term "polled" means "validly polled," it must be equally doubtful whether the words "polled by all the candidates" means "validly polled by all the candidates."

Mr. Grimston: Would the Home Secretary look at this point again between now and the Report stage? It seems, on the face of it, that if the word


"valid" is used where suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend it would be very much tidier and much more understandable.

Mr. Ede: I am willing to look at the point again, but I cannot think that there is any real doubt about the meaning of "votes polled by all the candidates." The votes polled by all the candidates are those which are recorded on the final form which the returning officer fills up. If anyone fails to poll one-eighth of those he is liable to lose his deposit. I do not think there is any doubt about what it means, but I will certainly look into it, because I am anxious that there shall be no room for doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 17, line 10, at the end, to insert:
if the number of candidates shown as standing nominated in the statement of persons nominated did not exceed three or one-tenth of the total number of votes polled if the number of such candidates exceeded three.
Perhaps for clarity it might be as well if I read out how the wording of Subsection (4) will read after these words have been inserted. It will read like this:
… the deposit shall be forfeited if …. the candidate is found not to have polled more than one-eighth of the total number of votes polled by all the candidates if the number of candidates shown as standing nominated in the statement of persons nominated did not exceed three or one-tenth of the total number of votes polled if the number of such candidates exceeded three.
This Amendment is put down to introduce into the Bill a recommendation of the Speaker's Conference. If hon. Members would refer to the final Report they will see in paragraph 10 that the conference made this recommendation so that the conditions of forfeiture should be made less exacting where the number of candidates is more than three. We want to know why this recommendation has not been followed, because it seems to us to be entirely reasonable. In order to bear that out, I would like to give an example of a case that might conceivably happen. Supposing there are six candidates at an election, a candidate who polls 4,999 votes out of 40,000 can hardly be deemed to be a frivolous candidate, but we should have this result: we might have the winning candidate getting 15,005 votes and the five other candidates getting 4,999

each. They would all lose their deposits, although I do not think it could be argued that those were all frivolous candidates.
Our Amendment would provide that in the case of more than three candidates they should only lose their deposits in the case of only one polling one-tenth of the votes cast and allowed. By virtue of the fact that this was a recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, that it was a reasonable one and certainly not one which would attract frivolous candidates into the field, we feel that this Amendment should be accepted. While we have departed from the Speaker's Conference recommendations in many directions, that is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should depart from them in other directions; in fact, quite the reverse. I hope he will see his way to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Ede: The Government have considered this recommendation. We have come to the conclusion that the existing law represents a very reasonable arrangement which has now worked for 30 years without, as far as I know, causing any real ground of criticism. As we have been reminded more than once in the course of this Parliament, there was an election for the Scottish Universities where I think every candidate except the succesful candidate lost his deposit. One-eighth seems to us to be the kind of reasonable support in a constituency for which a candidate should look. To reduce the fraction will encourage splinter candidates and splinter parties, and we think that on the whole it is desirable that that should not happen. Those are the reasons which have induced us not to accept the recommendation of the Conference.

Mr. Grimston: What the Home Secretary's answer amounts to is this: "This is our opinion." It is quite obvious that this recommendation was made after considerable consideration at the Speaker's Conference, and the Home Secretary is merely pitting his opinion and the opinion of his party against the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference consisting of all the parties. That is another instance of what is happening under this Bill, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should meet this Amendment with that answer. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to advise my hon. Friends to divide on this Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 125; Noes, 264.

Division No. 129.
AYES.
[4.41 p.m


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Price-White, Lt-.Col. D.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Raikes, H. V.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hollis, M. C.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hurd, A.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Birch, Nigel
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Jarvis, Sir J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bower, N.
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Ropner, Col. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Keeling, E. H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Lambert, Hon. G.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Scott, Lord W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lipson, D. L.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Butcher, H. W.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Byers, Frank
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Carson, E.
MacAndrew., Col. Sir C.
Snadden, W. M.


Challen, C.
McFarlane, C. S.
Spence, H. R.


Channon, H.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Sutcliffe, H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Drewe, C.
Mellor, Sir J.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Duthie, W. S.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarther)
Touche, G. C.


Eccles, D. M.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Turton, R. H.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wadsworth, G.


Erroll, F. J.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fraser, H. D. P. (Stone)
Neill, W. F.(Belfast, N.)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Nicholson, G.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Osborne, C.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Grant, Lady
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
York, C.


Gridley, Sir A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K.



Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Head, Brig. A. H.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Major Conant and


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Prescott, Stanley
Brigadier Mackeson.




NOES.


Acland, Sir Richard
Burke, W. A.
Dumpleton, C. W.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Alpass, J. H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Chamberlain, R. A.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Champion, A. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Attewell, H. C.
Chater, D.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Austin, H. Lewis
Chetwynd, G. R.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Awbery, S. S.
Cluse, W. S.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Ayles, W. H.
Cocks, F. S.
Ewart, R.


Bacon, Miss A.
Coldrick, W.
Fairhurst, F.


Balfour, A.
Collick, P.
Farthing, W. J.


Barstow, P. G.
Collindridge, F.
Fernyhough, E.


Barton, C.
Collins, V. J.
Follick, M.


Battley, J. R.
Cook, T. F.
Forman, J. C.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Benson, G.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Berry, H.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Gallacher, W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Cove, W. G.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Bing, G. H. C.
Crawley, A.
Gibbins, J.


Binns, J.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gilzean, A.


Blackburn, A. R.
Daggar, G.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Blenkinsop, A.
Daines, P.
Gooch, E. G.


Blyton, W. R.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Board man, H.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grenfell, D. R.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Grey, C. F.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Deer, G.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Diamond, J.
Gunter, R. J.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Dobbie, W.
Guy, W. H.


Brown, George (Belper)
Dodds, N. N.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hale, Leslie


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil




Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Marquand, H. A.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Soskice, Sir Frank


Hardy, E. A.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Sparks, J. A.


Harrison, J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Monslow, W.
Stress, Dr. B.


Haworth, J.
Moody, A. S
Stubbs, A. E.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morley, R.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Herbison, Miss M.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Swingler, S.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Hicks, G.
Mort, D. L.
Symonds, A. L.


Holman, P.
Moyle, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


House, G.
Murray, J. D.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Hoy, J.
Naylor, T. E.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Oldfield, W. H.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Oliver, G. H.
Tiffany, S.


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Orbach, M.
Titterington, M. F.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Paget, R. T.
Tolley, L.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Usborne, Henry


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Parker, J.
Viant, S. P.


Johnston, Douglas
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Walkdon, E.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Peart, T. F.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Perrins, W.
Warbey, W. N.


Keenan, W.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Watkins, T. E.


Kenyan, C.
Popplewell, E.
Watson, W. M.


Kinley, J.
Porter, E. (Warrington),
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
West, D. G.


Lang, G.
Price, M. Philips
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Pryde, D. J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Ranger, J.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Rankin, J.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Leonard, W.
Reeves, J.
Wigg, George


Leslie, J. R.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wilkes, L.



Rhodes, H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Levy, B. W.
Robens, A.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Royle, C.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sargood, R.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Logan, D. G.
Scollan, T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Lyne, A. W.
Scott-Elliot, W
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


McAdam, W.
Segal, Dr. S.
Willis, E.


McAllister, G.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


McEntee, V. La T.
Sharp, Granville
Wise, Major F. J.


McGhee, H. G.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Woodburn, A.


Mack, J. D.
Shurmer, P.
Woods, G. S.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wyatt, W.


McKinlay, A. S.
Simmons, C. J.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


McLeavy, F.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Zilliacus, K.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Skinnard, F. W.



Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mann, Mrs. J.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Mr. Pearson and


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Snow, J. W.
Mr. Richard Adams.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Solley, L. J.



Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would like to ask a question relating to Subsection (1). Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the procedure in reference to deposits outlined there is the same as has been the law hitherto, or is there any amendment? If it is the same as it has been previously, as I apprehend it to be, could the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee exactly what happens to a forfeited deposit? Does it go into the general or a particular fund of the State? I have never been able to ascertain the answer to that question, which is of particular

interest to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway.

Mr. Ede: I believe that the procedure is the same as formerly. I understand that the amount is forfeited to the Treasury, and I imagine, although I wish I had had notice of the question, that it goes to the general credit of the taxation fund of the country.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 16.—(Returning officers.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bing: I wish to ask one or two questions on this Clause, which provides that the returning officers in Northern Ireland shall be the under-sheriffs. They are not the returning officers for the Northern Ireland Parliament. They represent a rather significant change. It is a good thing that the returning officers for the Northern Ireland Parliament are not accepted by this House. Is this not an opportunity for the House to exercise some degree of control over what goes on in elections in Northern Ireland? We are here appointing under this Clause a special type of returning officer for Northern Ireland who is not the type of returning officer who returns for the elections for the Northern Ireland Parliament.
As we are departing in that sense from the provision made for the Northern Ireland Parliament, I suggest that we might possibly have somebody who is not an under-sheriff, but who is directly responsible to this House. The difficulty about the under-sheriff is that he is responsible to the sheriff, who is responsible to the Minister for Home Affairs for Northern Ireland. If the Northern Ireland HANSARD is to be trusted, the attitude of the Minister for Home Affairs for Northern Ireland towards elections to this House is not to care what happens one way or the other. I will quote the passage. I do not want to argue this point. I only wish to refer to an allegation and to read from the Northern Ireland HANSARD to show the attitude of the Minister for Home Affairs for Northern Ireland. It is alleged—I do not know whether it is true or not—that where there are not sufficient Unionist voters the Unionist agent gives a piece of paper to someone who is not on the register, and that person is then allowed by the returning officer to vote. Secondly, in order that everyone shall be quite clear as to who they are voting for, the figure of the Unionist candidate is exhibited over the polling booth.
This allegation was made by the Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party in the Northern Ireland Parliament. It dealt with a by-election to this House. He said:
Again there were two persons who said they were ex-Service men, whose names appeared neither on the official civilian residents list of electors nor on the official Service register, yet they were permitted to vote on the authority of a typed slip provided by Unionist

representatives in the polling station. It was also noted at the same time that between the door and the window of the polling booth there was prominently displayed a notice stating, 'Unionists, do not split. Vote Mullan.'
We can discuss that on another Clause. I wish to call the Home Secretary's attention to the way in which the Minister for Home Affairs replied on that occasion. He did not deny it. Indeed, he answered,
Boy, but they did it.
That seems to me to be a somewhat unreasonable attitude on the part of a leading official.
Then there is the further question that the under-sheriffs are very often compelled to appoint presiding officers who can only look to the Minister for Home Affairs for support in enforcing proper law and order in the booths. If we had commissioners or someone of that description, appointed by this House, it would be possible to deal with the matter otherwise. That support is not given. It was alleged by a Unionist Member of the Northern Ireland House that ballot boxes had been opened, Labour votes taken out and ballot papers altered. That is the allegation of a Unionist Member who was an officer of police.

Mr. McKie: Who was he?

Mr. Bing: Mr. Nixon. He was so much enamoured of the Unionist cause that he combined the office of district inspector with that of being the master of an Orange lodge.
5.0 p.m.
Secondly, may I give the House one other example of the fact that the presiding officer and the under-sheriffs cannot get the support which they deserve? Let me give one example of the attitude of the Northern Ireland Minister for Home Affairs. A number of police went out to canvass in the constituency of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden) in the Armagh by-election, and they canvassed, as I suppose is proper, their rivals.
All I wish to emphasise is the attitude of the Minister of Home Affairs who is still excusing himself for having dismissed two of them. I will read his words:
MR. WARNOCK: The hon. Member for South Armagh did say one thing to which I take exception. He said that the 'B' Specials can terrorise citizens by firing off their rifles. What happened was that three 'B' Specials took their service rifles and fired off some


shots. One was wounded, and I have dismissed the other two. I have taken disciplinary action against the people concerned and have dismissed them from the 'B' Special Constabulary.
Then he pleads with the House:
I would not have done it if I did not think it was right. If I did what was right, what is wrong in that?
It is a very serious matter. I will just quote a description, entirely uncorrected and undenied by the Minster for Home Affairs, of what in fact took place at one polling station—

The Chairman: I do not see what incidents at a polling station have to do with the appointment of under-sheriffs as returning officers. That would appear to be a different proposition altogether.

Mr. Bing: I am sorry. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The point I am making is that the returning officers who are in charge of discipline are responsible to the under-sheriff, who is responsible to the Minister for Home Affairs. I do not criticise the under-sheriff. Had we an officer appointed by this House to supervise the elections in the place of under-sheriffs we should be able to effect discipline. That is the point with which I am dealing.
At one polling booth where it was known that impersonation took place on a really large scale, there were no police, and the presiding officer did not get any. Why? Because the inspector of police accompanied by six armed policemen was—and these are the words in HANSARD—
Helping another presiding officer to make up his register.
Let me read to the Committee the very terrible account of what happened at this election. There were two agents there:
Immediately these two agents came through the door they were rushed upon by a mob of 200 people. The police were scattered among the mob. One of these boys was thrown on the ground and battered and kicked, and only that two men—whether through mercy or not we do not know—threw him over a wire fence six feet away he would certainly have been killed. The other boy was also kicked to the door of the car. His friends inside the car endeavoured to open it. He was pushed and kicked and battered into the car and the mob gathered in force and threw the car over on its side, broke all the windows, and when the unfortunate men were hanging out through the car one man threw a lighted match on the petrol flowing on the ground.

That is how personation agents are treated if they dare to go to the area where impersonation takes place, and the Minister for Home Affairs is indifferent to this thing. All he said was, "This is a matter for the Imperial Parliament, let them deal with it." I suggest that this is the time to deal with it.

Mr. Harden: Although I have not addressed the House before, and I would ask hon. Members for their indulgence on this my first intervention, I could not let such remarks pass as have been made regarding my election, which took place only a short time ago. I would draw the attention of hon. Members to the remarks of my opponent when he seconded my vote of thanks to the returning officer. He said he was completely satisfied with the election and he had no fault to find with it. He went further. He said that, so far as he could see, it had been a perfectly clean and straight fight. After the closing of the polling booths there were one or two small incidents. This election was fought on a very vital question that made the people's blood rise to a pretty good height. There were incidents on both sides; the incidents were not confined to one side only. If the official opposition candidate says that the election was fair and that he is satisfied, I think that hon. Members of this House must accept that before they accept the remarks of hon. Members for English constituencies.
The reason why I state that so strongly is that on the day of the election, both my opponent and I spent the day touring all the polling booths, and neither he nor I found any fault at all with the way that the election was being run. I am quite convinced, and I think he was too, that each person had a right to go and vote as he thought fit, and as freely as he wished. I thank the House for the indulgence which they have shown me on this my first speech here.

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): I do not wish to enter into this controversy, but I would congratulate the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden) on his initial entry into Debate. He spoke with such confidence that I am quite satisfied that the House will be pleased to hear him on future occasions. I am also glad to see a representative of the Scottish Office on the Front Bench. I have very grave doubts


whether a sheriff is a competent person in Scotland to act as a returning officer. I would much rather see a condition attached to this Subsection that sheriffs should go through a refresher course on electoral law before they came on the job. I wish to illustrate the point by giving one or two experiences of my own from a somewhat long experience in electioneering.
I remember at a by-election which I fought a number of years ago, the sheriff laid it down that the agents of the candidates at the counting of the votes could stand only on one side of the table, although the table was a horseshoe arrangement. He stood calmly by when the figures were announced and permitted the enumerators to stand upon the table and cheer the victory of my opponent. I always understood that enumerators, for the time being anyway, were impartial. But that was only a minor incident. In a famous election in Glasgow where a right hon. Member of this House, who at the moment holds a very distinguished post in the Government, was narrowly defeated—I refer to the Kelvingrove election of 1935—the election agent who was a lawyer, approached me, knowing full well that I was well and utterly beaten by that time by my hon. Friend the Member for Partick (Sir A. Young). I was out and had no worries on my mind. The lawyer asked me what it cost to have a re-count. I said, "Who is leading?" He said, "We are." I said, "Let the other fellow worry about re-counting, don't you worry." He said, "I must make sure, I will ask the sheriff." What do hon. Members think the sheriff said? He said, "I do not know." There was a re-count, and both parties dipped into their pockets and paid the enumerators an extra, fee for counting the votes over again. There was an additional box counted at the second count, and one candidate had fewer votes when the additional box was counted than he had at the first enumeration. The point I wish to make is that the sheriff did not know what it cost for a re-count.
To come to a more recent date, at the nominations in my own constituency I took exception to the designation given to my opponent who was a very likeable chap and the son of a highly respected father with whom I had the closest personal relations. He was described as an officer and "R.N.V.R." was given as his

employment. In my submission that was not the man's employment at all. The sheriff, in arguing the case with me said, "If I were to stand as a candidate here I should put in my designation that I was a landowner." I said, "Well, if you were, that would be perfectly true, it would be your occupation." He said, "But that would cost me votes." I was not fighting the candidate at all. I was fighting the R.N.V.R.
On polling day a woman came up to me with a little girl aged 11. She said, "How about this girl here? She is on the register." It so happened that the sheriff was standing with me at the time. I said, "This gentleman will advise you," and I walked away. A few minutes afterwards the woman came up to me and said, "It's all right, it's in the bag." The sheriff had ruled that the 11 year old girl was eligible to vote and the vote was accepted. But worse still, when the election addresses for the Forces were delivered at Dumbarton, the sheriff ruled that the only soldiers entitled to get an election address were the soldiers on service who were having a postal vote and of the 6,000 election addresses sent to the county buildings, 4,000 were returned. I submit that that is an absurd situation.
I do not wish to divide the House on this matter, but I think we should insist on a refresher couse in electoral law. My experience was the experience of several candidates in Scotland over a long period of years. If there is to be a mistake, all the sheriffs should make the same mistake on the same day. Then it would apply with equal force all over the country. At least there should be unanimity. There would be some justification if they were all making the same mistake. My experience was similar to that of other candidates in various parts of the country.
5.15 p.m.
I do not see where anything could be inserted in this Clause to improve the position, but I suggest that there should be an alternative to the sheriff. That suggestion will appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, because good healthy competition is something which promotes greater efficiency. If anything can be done, even after this Bill becomes an Act, to ensure that if this House passes electoral laws those called upon to administer them will understand them, I hope that it will be


done. I will give one more illustration. Provision was made for those who had been prisoners of war to vote. Not one returned prisoner in the Vale of Leven or in the Helensburgh district got a vote. There was a special leaf in the register for that purpose, but the minions of the presiding officer knew nothing about it. Service men spent hours at the polling booths demanding what they knew was their right. The fact was that the register was there but nobody had noticed it.
Irritations of this kind should not take place. In this case I am sure that sheer inefficiency was responsible for the mistake. If nothing can be done in this Bill, I hope that the sheriffs will take to heart what has been said and will not feel offended if they are asked to refresh their minds on this important aspect of the law of the country.

Captain Marsden: Up to a certain point, I endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). I understood him to say that the sheriff or returning officer should have a clear idea of the duties involved. In many parts of the country different interpretations are put upon the situation. It would be well if all the interpretations were the same. I am not sure about a refresher course; I think that some never had any course at all. Some instruction or guidance might be given by the Home Secretary in an attempt to avoid certain incidents which took place at the last General Election. In the Chertsey Division the result was obvious at an early stage of the count. As time went on, there was no doubt who would be second. When the first count was over, the third candidate was in danger of losing his deposit. I will not say the name of the party to which he belonged. It was a question of five votes either way whether or not he would get back his £150.
There were three counts of all the votes because of that. Consequently, a great deal of time was wasted. Outside the hall, processions were waiting to cheer the conqueror, but gradually they faded away so that finally he did not get all the applause to which he was entitled. At about 5.30 in the afternoon everybody knew the result, but they did not know whether or not the third candidate had managed to save his deposit. I make

that point because I think that the Home Secretary might make it clear at the next General Election that when the returning officer is satisfied of the result—that is to say, when he is satisfied who is the winner—he should be able to declare it without going through numerous recounts.

Mr. Mulvey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden) on his maiden speech. I hope that we shall hear from him frequently in our Debates. I wish to endorse the statement of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) about the elections in Northern Ireland. While there is no serious specified complaint, there is dissatisfaction about the election of Members to this House. It is felt in Northern Ireland that the same rules in regard to elections as apply in this country should apply there. I will not attempt to re-open the question of polling booths. I consider that we in Northern Ireland suffer a great injustice in the matter of elections. This House should remedy the position and thus restore the confidence of the people.

Mr. Ede: I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden) on surviving the test of having to make not only a maiden speech but an extempore speech, of the subject matter of which he could have had no notice. It was a distinctly creditable performance. I am sure that even the Government will always be willing to listen to him, particularly if he speaks with the brevity which he showed this afternoon.
I am not going to be drawn into an adjudication on what happened at the last Parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland. It appears to me that some of the points mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), if they related to questions of fact, should have been submitted to an appropriate court. I cannot here adjudicate on statements made on only one side. If some of the allegations were correct, it seems to me they might almost have formed the basis for a petition against an election in which intimidation had been displayed towards sections of the voters. The under-sheriff, as in this country, is a salaried officer. He is responsible for the proper carrying out of an election.
In order that there shall be no doubt in future as to the duties of returning and


other officers in the conduct of an election, we have set out in detail in the Third Schedule the proper way in which to do it. That has been done to meet some of the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) who drew attention to difficulties associated with the count. We have been assured that in Scottish elections in the past there has been some doubt as to the rights of agents and other people during the count. In paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule we have endeavoured to set out the appropriate steps that should be taken. I can well understand that at a Scottish election the first question that would be asked when there is a recount is, "Who is to pay for it?" I have taken part in an election in which there were five recounts. I was an agent at the time and I was certain that, although I was resisting the recounts, neither I nor my opponent would pay for them. Anything that was given at a Scottish election by way of solarium to those who had had a recount imposed upon them, must have been an act of grace on the part of the candidates. I am sure that in no court could anything have been recovered from either or both the candidates in that respect.
We have now set out quite clearly in the Third Schedule the rights of candidates and the duties of returning officers so that there shall be no difficulty of that kind in future. I suggest that the sheriff is the appropriate officer. We have endeavoured to set out clearly what are the rights of candidates, and the duties of sheriffs, returning officers and other officers associated with the elections. I hope that the Third Schedule will avoid the kind of difficulties which sometimes have occurred in the past.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 17.—(Discharge of functions of returning officer.)

Mr. Thurtle: I beg to move, in page 18, line 16, at the beginning, to insert:
subject as in Subsection (3) of this Section provided.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Perhaps it would be convenient if the following Amendments in page 18, line 23 and line 26 were discussed at the same time.

Mr. Thurtle: My reason for moving this Amendment is to give my right hon. Friend the opportunity of making a statement. I gather that he will take advantage of that opportunity. The Committee will recollect that the new City of London constituency is to be made up of the City of London plus the boroughs of Finsbury and Shoreditch. In that connection, it is proposed that the registration officer shall be the Secondary of the City of London. In the view of both Shoreditch and Finsbury, it is undesirable that the work of registration should be done from the City of London. They desire to see the Bill so altered as to enable the town clerks of Finsbury and Shoreditch respectively to be appointed deputies in order that they may carry out this work of registration which they feel they are eminently suited to do.
I believe that it is in doubt whether the City of London is to be amalgamated with Shoreditch and Finsbury. We certainly do not urge that. It may well be that later in the Bill the City will be amalgamated with some other constituency. That is a matter for the future. My concern is to safeguard the position of the town clerks of Shoreditch and Finsbury in the matter of registration. If the Home Secretary would be good enough to take the opportunity of giving an assurance of that kind, I would be very happy.

Mr. Ede: On the Second Reading of this Bill and on the earlier stages of the proceedings in Committee, I said that the Government were prepared to consider any representations that were made by the City of London and adjoining metropolitan boroughs with regard to the way in which the City of London should be associated with some other boroughs in representation in the future. Up to the moment, I have not had any response which indicates that the City of London has any other preference than that which was expressed when the Sheriffs and the Recorder came to the Bar of the House. I am hopeful that before this House parts with the Bill we shall be able to reach some arrangement which will be satisfactory both to the City and to adjoining metropolitan boroughs.
5.30 p.m.
I think the point of raised in this series of Amendments by my hon. Friends is sound. It would be desirable that, if the City of London were ultimately associated


with Shoreditch and Finsbury in its representation, the provisions made here for the town clerks of Shoreditch and Finsbury should be placed in the statute, but, as it is not certain with which metropolitan boroughs the City of London will be associated, I would suggest that my hon. Friend should not press this Amendment at the present time. When we come to the Report stage, I will see that the appropriate Amendments are put down to deal with whatever metropolitan boroughs may be associated with the City.

Mr. Keeling: I hope that, if this Amendment does come before us again, the hon. Member will endeavour to improve the English, which is certainly atrocious.

Mr. Thurtle: So far as the English, such as it is, is concerned, the people to take responsibility for it must be the town clerks of Shoreditch and Finsbury. In view of the very satisfactory statement made by the Home Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 18, line 33, at the end, to insert:
(2) The returning officer shall give to the acting returning officer written notice of any duties which he reserves to himself under paragraph (b) of the foregoing Subsection and that paragraph shall, in the case of any election, apply to the duties (if any) of which notice is so given not later than the day following that on which the writ is received, and to no others.
Under Clause 17, the duties of returning officer are to be discharged by the registration officer and the acting returning officer, subject to certain exceptions. Representations have been received that it is not always made clear by the returning officer which duties he has reserved to himself under Clause 17 (1, b). It is the purpose of this Amendment to ensure that, at the very outset and before any action has been taken, the returning officer shall make it clear in writing which are the duties which he reserves to himself, to avoid any possible confusion.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 19, line 23, to leave out from "Ireland," to "vacancy," in line 28, and to insert:
the power of appointing deputies conferred by the said section eight shall be exercisable by any under-sheriff who—


(a) is returning officer for more than one constituency; or
(b) by reason of sickness or unavoidable absence is incapacitated from performing any of the duties devolving upon him as returning officer;

and in the event of no such appointment being made by an under-sheriff so incapacitated, or in the event of any.
This Amendment replaces a form of words at the beginning of Subsection (6), on page 19, relating to the appointment of deputies in Northern Ireland. It is slightly more than a mere form of words, and the Committee will notice that it is now proposed, if the Amendment is accepted, to use a form of words which will correspond to that in the preceding Subsection (5), which deals with the same problem of Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I beg to move, in page 19, line 40, at the end, to add:
(8) Section thirty-six of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1832, in so far as it prohibits a sheriff clerk or deputy sheriff clerk from voting at parliamentary elections shall cease to have effect.
The purpose of this Amendment is to remove the disability which has existed on a sheriff clerk or deputy sheriff clerk from voting at Parliamentary elections. So far back as 1832 a similar disability on sheriffs and sheriffs substitute has existed. That disability is removed by Clause 17 (7) of the Bill, but the position of sheriff clerks and deputy sheriff clerks had been overlooked, and there is no justification for retaining this disability in their cases.

Commander Galbraith: I wonder if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could explain why this disability ever arose. I find it difficult to accept the Amendment when nothing is said as to why such a disability has existed in the past, and I am quite sure the Lord Advocate could satisfy me in a few words.

The Lord Advocate: My recollection does not go as far back as 1832, but I presume that the reason for it was that they might have to carry out certain administrative duties, and it was desirable that they should not be electors in the election. That, I think, is an impeachment not likely to be levelled against a sheriff clerk or deputy sheriff clerk today. Unfortunately, the disability has stood for


over 100 years, and I think all must welcome its removal.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McKie: I would like to ask the learned Lord Advocate if he could give me some enlightenment on Subsection (5) which deals with the powers of appointing deputies which are conferred by Section 8 of the Ballot Act, 1872. I hope I am not asking him to strain his memory or intelligence too far, because I have a great respect for him. I am only asking him to go back as far as 1872, which is 40 years later than the other Act which has been mentioned. I would like to know how far a power of appointing deputies is vested in certain sheriffs, and whether the appointment would go automatically to the senior sheriff concerned. In spite of what was said by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) at an earlier stage, when he made some remarks about certain elections in the past, all Scottish Members would wish that the sheriffs or sheriffs substitute should be the returning officers. For that reason, I want to be quite clear how far the Ballot Act, 1872, goes in conferring powers upon certain sheriffs in certain circumstances to appoint as their deputies persons who are not sheriffs principal or sheriffs substitute.
The provisions of Subsection (7) are very necessary, having regard to the fact that we have already dispensed with the casting vote of the returning officer. I congratulate the Lord Advocate on having gone a little further in tidying up the Clause by inserting a similar provision concerning sheriff clerks. I hope the learned Lord Advocate will say something about the powers of sheriffs under the Ballot Act, 1872, to appoint people outside their own fraternity to act as returning officers.

The Lord Advocate: It is always a pleasure to allay the misgivings of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie). I would remind him that the disability on sheriffs and sheriffs substitute did not commence in 1907; they were disfranchised by the 1872 Act. The initial power for the returning officers to appoint deputies was granted by the 1872 Act,

but the powers were re-enacted in the 1918 Act. The powers in Subsection (5) are to all intents and purposes exactly the same powers as were granted in the 1918 Act and no change has been effected, so far as this point is concerned.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 18.—(Payments by and to returning officer.)

Amendment made: In page 20, line 33, after "Mayor's," insert "and City of London."—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 20.—(Breaches of official duty.)

Amendments made: In page 22, line 17, leave out "discharging," and insert "under a duty to discharge."

In page 22, line 43, leave out "discharging," and insert "under a duty to discharge."—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause, as amended, order to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 21.—(Electors.)

Mrs. Corbet: I beg to move, page 23, line 10, at the end, to insert:
(iii) make application to the Registration Officer for the area concerned on a form of declaration to be issued, on request, by the Registration Officer; and
The object of the Amendment is to make it necessary for the non-resident voter to claim his vote. I have in mind the fact that the non-resident voter will not be living in the area in which the election takes place in which he will have a vote. It is not asking too much of him that he should show sufficient interest in the affairs of the area in which he seeks to influence the local government by putting forward a claim, as, in fact, he does at the present time. The normal voter living inside the area would naturally be influenced by political campaigns during the election and would be aware of the local conditions. He would not be subject to the same sort of considerations as a non-resident voter might well be. I therefore suggest that he should be asked to make application for the privilege to vote,


but, at the same time, I ask that the Minister should make it clear to the returning officer that there should be a full public advertisement as to the manner in which the application form may be obtained.

Mr. Ede: I think my hon. Friend has overlooked the fact that when the new registers are compiled under this Bill there will be a canvass of the electoral area, and that, in the course of it, the officer conducting the canvass will visit the place where this voter has some premises which entitled him to the qualification. I can see no reason why he should be treated differently from any other person qualified to be on the register.
5.45 P.m.
During the last few years while there has been no canvass there has been an insistence that business premises voters should make a claim. I think that was necessary when no canvass was being conducted. In fact, however, the register was compiled on the basis of the national register which showed only the man's place of residence and one could not pick out any qualifications from the national register. We have decided that there shall be these non-resident voters and it seems right that all electors should get on the register in the same way. I cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.

Mrs. Corbet: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. Corbet: I beg to move, in page 23, line 23, at the end, to insert:
of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds.
This seeks to obviate the possibility of a non-resident voter establishing a claim for a vote on very minor qualifications, such as grave space, or a garage or lockup shop. Such a claim would seem to be an abuse of this right. It may be argued that it is sufficient if he has possessions in that locality, for as a democratic principle he has the appropriate qualifications. I would entirely support that in the case of the normal resident voter and I would say, in such a case, that the very fact of his residence is a sufficient guarantee against any abuse of the right and privilege of voting. In this case it is obvious that a number of claims might be

made which were not really substantial. In order to guard against this I suggest we should introduce the same qualification that it is proposed to put into the Bill for Scotland.

Mr. Ede: I do not think the occupier of a grave space could be expected to vote in Great Britain. I do not think we have seen a resurrection, with people recently committed to the grave turning up at the polling booth. I do not think we need fear the occupiers of grave space. This is an occupiers vote, just as the resident's qualification is an occupiers' vote, but I think there is a danger that allotment holders—people who have small plots of land just over the border of the constituency in which they live—might be given votes if this Clause were passed in its present form. I propose, therefore, to accept my hon. Friend's amendment and to require that the non-resident shall be occupying land or premises of a yearly value of not less than £10. This is the same qualification as has been imposed in Scotland and it seems to me to be a very reasonable one. I advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Alpass: I am very surprised and disappointed that the Home Secretary should accept this Amendment, because, as I see it, it will operate like this. Only those who are sufficiently well-placed financially so as to occupy property of the value of £10 will be able to claim the vote. Those persons who are not in that financial position and are not so well situated will therefore be disenfranchised. I submit that that is entirely opposed to the principles of the Labour Party and to what I conceive to be the Socialist conception of democracy.

Mr. Ede: I am rather surprised at the outburst of my hon. Friend. After all, all these people will already have one vote for Parliament, as residents in some place in the country, but they will be paying rates in some other place.

Mr. Alpass: Not if they occupy agricultural land.

Mr. Ede: They will be occupying land or buildings within the local government area and, in view of the suggestion of small allotments being brought in unless we insert this Amendment, I think it is


reasonable to insert a qualification of £10. I should have thought, in the case of non-resident voters, that that would include practically everybody, except those who might claim in respect of allotments. I cannot think that in these circumstances the qualification of £10 for non-resident voters will disenfranchise anyone.

Mrs. Braddock: May I ask the Home Secretary if this means that people can have two votes—one in the place where they live and one in the place where they have a nonresident claim? That raises a difficult question, because I understand the reason for this Bill is that people should have one vote and only one vote. Does it mean they can decide whether they will vote in the area in which they have a residential vote or in the area where they have a non-residential vote?

Mr. Ede: If the hon. Lady will look at Part II of the Bill, she will] see it is local government franchise. We have established in this Bill the principle of one vote for Parliamentary elections, because that entitles a person to have a voice in the affairs of the nation. If a person has, however, an interest in a local government area other than the one in which he resides—through the occupation of land or buildings—it sems to me he has a perfect right to express his voice about the way local government shall be carried on in that second area. These persons will not receive two votes if they live in one part of the borough and have a shop or some other premises in another part of the same borough. They have only one vote in respect of county council elections, no matter how many properties they may have scattered about the county. It seems quite right, however, that if a man lives in one local government area and pays rates there, he should have a vote in respect of that area. If he has some property which he occupies—not which he owns—in another local government area and pays rates in respect of that, he should also have the right to a vote there, because the vote which he has in the first area has nothing to do with the way in which his money is expended in the second area. This does not violate in any way the principle of "One man, one vote."

Mr. Leslie Hale: Is there any limit to this, because I occupy property

in Burton-on-Trent, London, Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Devonshire, Middlesex and other places?

Mr. Ede: Assuming that the properties occupied by my hon. Friend are of a yearly value of not less than £10, and he therefore contributes to the rates of those areas on whatever basis rates are levied in those areas, he will have a right to vote in respect of each of those properties, always provided that they are not in the same electoral area. If he happens to occupy a brewery and a public house in Burton-on-Trent, he will get only one vote in respect of that. I suggest that while a man pays his rates he is entitled to a vote in respect of that area.

Mr. Alpass: May I postulate this case? There may be a farmer in Wiltshire, which adjoins my constituency, and he may rent a field in my constituency valued at £10, but will not pay any rates at all because agricultural land is not rated. If the Amendment is to the effect that he will have a vote where he pays rates, there may be something in it, but I submit he has no right to vote when he makes no contribution towards expenditure.

Mr. Ede: That is an exceptional case and I will look into the matter. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend will not grow so excited I will try to help him, but if he does not wish to hear me I will let it go. This is a point worthy of consideration between now and the Report stage, but I want to stand firmly by the principle that where a person pays rates in an area he is entitled to a vote in respect of the way in which the rates he pays are expended.

Mr. Binns: What we are trying to do is to prevent the abuse of this privilege, but there is the case where those who pay rates could create a partnership—say, 100 different people paying tooth part of the rates, all in a partnership simply in order to have a vote for that particular area. I am quite sure that this £10 in yearly value is a reasonable basis so long as we cover the point suggested by the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass), that it should apply to those people actually paying rates.

Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend make one point perfectly clear? He used the phrase,


"the electoral area." Does he mean by that phrase the Parliamentary electoral area or the local government electoral area? I would like that to be clear, because in the case of a big city, with about 20 different wards, an individual within that city possessing shops, say, in 10 wards might have 10 votes or more in a local government election in that city.

Mr. Ede: It is clearly set out in the Bill that the local government electoral area is the borough, urban district, rural district, parish or county which may be concerned in the election. If a person has 20 properties in the same borough he can vote only once. If he has 30 properties in the same county he can vote only once at county council elections. If his 30 properties are spread over many boroughs, urban districts, and rural districts in the county, he will also have one vote in respect of each district where he occupies property. He has only one vote in respect of each local government body in which his properties are situated. With regard to the further point raised, there is a later Amendment, which I propose to accept, which will make it clear that partnerships must produce £10 each before they can lead to enfranchisement. That comes in the next Clause.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. George Porter: I want to compliment the Home Secretary on his agreement to introduce an Amendment to the Clause which will make it impossible for what has happened even this month in the area in which I reside to happen again. Not only has an individual been entitled to a vote, but he has stood as a candidate for local government, and his only connection with the area is that he pays 7s. 6d. per year for an allotment. He is residing in an entirely different area.

Mr. Neil Maclean: I want to ask the Home Secretary a question about the statement he has just made. Anyone owning shops in a particular area would be entitled to vote in respect of those shops. The question arises whether the owner or occupier would be entitled to vote in the different wards in which the shops were situated in a local government election. Would such a person be entitled to have a vote in respect of each of those shops? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think the matter ought to be cleared up.

Mr. Ede: I despair of making the matter clear. I have said that in respect of each local government unit—by which I mean borough, county, urban district, rural district, or parish council, as the case may be—a man will be able to vote only once.

Mr. Spence: I should like to congratulate the Home Secretary on having accepted this Amendment, because by doing so he has brought the law of England and Scotland into line.

Mr. John Paton: I want to offer a protest. I happen to be one of those who dislike property qualifications of any kind whatever, and while I am not proposing to make a fuss about it now, I want to have it on record that, there are some of us on this side of the Committee who dislike the property qualification, and swallow it only with very great difficulty. I do not like the idea that someone who has parcels of property spread over different local government areas is able to go into every one to express his political prejudices.

Mr. Ede: Such a person may or may not express his prejudices, but he may share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton) and express those.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 23, line 28, to leave out from "pounds," to the end of line 31.
In moving this Amendment I should like to deal also with the subsequent Government Amendments to Clause 22 which are all connected with it.
The purpose of the Amendment is to delete paragraph (b) of Subsection (3). The reason is that we feel that this paragraph is unnecessary. Under the previous Acts, and particularly in that of 1918, if a lodger had a qualification to vote in respect of his lodgings, it was necessary that he should have occupied those lodgings within the area for a period of three months prior to the effective date. In other words, there was a qualifying period of three months. Now there is no such qualifying period, and any such person, if he permanently lodges in that area, will have his residence there, and, accordingly, will qualify for his vote for the local authority area by virtue of such residence; and,


by the same token, if he is the owner, or occupier as tenant, of other lands and heritages of the yearly value of not less than –10 he will qualify for the vote as well.
Therefore it is unnecessary to have this further qualification, because it might lead to anomalies, since the three months' qualification is no longer required. A person residing in lodgings on holiday at the effective date would qualify for a vote in that particular area, whereas, hitherto, he would have had to have residence there for three months. The Amendment is to remove that possibility, without in any way prejudicing the interests of the individual, who will get his vote otherwise, either by virtue of residence or by being the occupier or owner of other property of £10 value elsewhere.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I am a little confused at this, because a number of hon. Members for English constituencies have an Amendment down, in page 23, line 26, to leave out paragraph (a).

The Deputy-Chairman: That has not been called.

Mrs. Mann: I thought it linked up with what the Lord Advocate has just stated. I am still confused, because it would appear from what the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) said just now, that there are about 10 different places in which he can stay and get a vote.

Mr. Hale: Will the hon. Lady forgive me? I am not occupying a number of mansions. I am occupying business premises where I carry on my business.

Mrs. Mann: I thank the hon. Member for that interjection, but it is quite irrelevant to my particular argument. The Lord Advocate has told us about the three months' residential qualification. That has now been cancelled out in this Bill. I understand that in England there is no such period laid down of the time one must occupy premises. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham may fly by night anywhere in England and vote 10 different times so long as he does not vote 10 different times inside one local authority area. However, he can vote 10 different times for 10 different local authorities without inquiry by anyone as to how long he has spent in that particular place. I am beginning to wonder if in Scotland they might ask him with

whom he spent his time. It appears to me that Scotland is unfairly treated in the residential qualifications. I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to clear up this matter.

The Lord Advocate: There is no question of unfairness here. It is merely a question of trying to be logical. If a person qualifies for a vote in ordinary circumstances he will get the vote under this Clause. As the Clause originally stood, by the removal of the three months' qualification, it meant that a person who, for a purely transitory period of, perhaps, a day or two, was actually occupying lodgings of which the unfurnished value was not less than £10 per annum, would have been entitled to register in respect of those premises. Manifestly, that is not the type of qualification which we envisage. A person can still get his vote if he is resident, or, if he has a business qualification vote, he will get it in respect of the business qualification. We are not inflicting any hardship at all, but are removing something which seems out of place in this particular Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Willis: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton) I feel that the principle embodied in this Clause is a bad principle. The basing of a vote, whether for a local authority or for the Government, on a property qualification is, I think, wrong, and I want to register my protest. However, there was a specific point which I wished to raise in connection with Subsection (3, a). That Subsection reads:
In Scotland, a person shall be deemed to have a non-resident qualification in an area if he—
(a) is the owner, or occupier as tenant. …
That seems to me to be rather rubbish, to be frank. I am not a lawyer, but it suggests that an owner as tenant—[HON. MEMBERS: "Owner, or occupier as tenant."]—It states, "owner, or occupier as tenant." Why cannot we have the same wording as that in the Subsection relating to England? That seems very intelligible. That is Subsection (2). It says that a person shall be deemed to


have a non-resident qualification in an area:
if he is occupying as owner or tenant any land or premises therein.
That is quite intelligible. I cannot make very much, however, of a sentence which reads:
is the owner, or occupier as tenant.
I do not know what that means. If I were asked to construe that I should say that, where a person owns or occupies, he is entitled to a vote in that particular area. But, apparently, that is wrong. I do not know. I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate whether we can have the same intelligible wording as there is in the Subsection dealing with England and Wales.

Mr. Hale: I do feel that the Clause is open to objection. I am sure that many of us are grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will look at certain parts of it. I am not disposed to think that my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) is correct, in saying that the wording does not necessarily convey with complete accuracy the meaning of the Clause, but I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a difference in the provisions with regard to England and Wales and the provision in regard to Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: The Lord Advocate indicated dissent.

Mr. Hale: I am glad to have that assurance. There really is a fundamental issue of principle in this matter. We have stood against the property qualification. My right hon. Friend makes the point—and it is a very fair one—that the owner, the ratepayer, or the reasonably substantial ratepayer—we do not like the idea that the holding of an allotment is sufficient qualification—should have some consideration in the matter, and have a right to express a view, and I am not prepared to resist that too strenuously.
But my own personal case is a fair case to put. I have not, as my right hon. Friend humorously remarked I might have, the good fortune to own or occupy a brewery at Burton-on-Trent, but I do occupy, as tenant, offices in Burton-on-Trent. In respect of that particular office—which is a not insubstantial office—so far as I recollect I do not pay rates, but I pay an inclusive rental. It does not

matter for the moment, but it raises the fundamental principle mentioned by the right hon. Member, that it is the ratepayers who are to have the vote. I also occupy an office in Nuneaton, which is in a different county, and in respect of that I do pay rent and rates. I also occupy offices in Leicestershire and—I think it is—in the county of London. I hope that in saying that I shall not be accused by the Law Society of giving information about my respective premises so as to come within the advertising provisions.
6.15 p.m.
There might be a case—I am not arguing it for the moment—for a person to have one or two votes; but in these days there cannot be a case for a person having ten votes, exercising them at by-elections, and so on. There would, of course, be a geographical limitation on the exercise of a number of votes in a great many areas, but at by-elections a very unfair advantage is given to the person who occupies a number of properties. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider putting a top limit to the number of votes which may be exercised by any one person. I suggest that two is really twice too many as a maximum, and that a person who is entitled to be on more than one register should have to elect on which register he will vote for the purpose of exercising his right.

Mr. Alpass: I oppose the Subsection which confers the right of plural voting. I have always understood that the Labour Party was opposed to the principle of the property qualification, yet if this Clause is passed now that principle will be perpetuated and, if anything, intensified. In introducing the Bill the Home Secretary said:
From now on, every citizen of full age will have a vote, and only one vote. The Bill wipes out the last of the privileges that have been retained by special classes in the franchise of this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 839.]
That is true of Parliamentary franchise, and when the Bill was introduced, we all welcomed the implementation of that principle. But so far as local elections are concerned, I would submit that that principle is being departed from. This Clause confers the privilege of a second vote based upon the property qualification.
What further objection may result from the working of this Clause? Let me illustrate the matter by relating my own experience. When I was first a candidate for a county council I was defeated by one vote. Now, quite possibly the persons who decided whether or not I should be elected were not people who resided in the county council area, but people who resided in Bristol, outside the county council area. Very often local elections are decided by very narrow margins, and if the principle of plural voting remains in the Bill the desires and wishes of the people in the local area might be frustrated by those living outside the area who possess these plural votes based upon the property qualification. That would be an undesirable result.
The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) in commending this Bill said that it was based upon principles to which all true democrats could subscribe. Personally, I cannot subscribe to the principle that people should have many votes all over the country. People living in Bristol, adjoining the county council area in the County of Gloucestershire, may have more than one vote, and may determine who shall be elected to the City Council of Bristol, and also who shall be elected to the Gloucestershire County Council. I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider this, and on Report introduce an Amendment to give us greater satisfaction, enabling us to feel that the principle of abolishing plural voting has been implemented, not only for Parliamentary franchise, but for local government elections.

Mr. Rankin: While subscribing to most of what has been said about the property qualification, on which I shall not enlarge, I should like to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh about the part of the Clause which deals with Scotland, because I am sure the Lord Advocate probably realises that this wording will have to be reconsidered. In effect, the phrase "or occupier as tenant" would appear to impose a limitation, because apparently the owner may not necessarily be the occupier. The owner will still be able to vote, and the "occupier as tenant" will be able to vote. But the occupier can be the occupier as owner. Therefore, because of this seeming conflict, where another class is not specifically designated—the

class, now fairly common, of the occupier as owner—it would appear that the Clause limits the right of that class to vote. As doubt has been created about the actual meaning of this somewhat clumsy phrase, I hope that the Lord Advocate will reconsider it.

Mr. M. Philips Price: A quite dangerous precedent might be involved here. Or, to put it another way, the old custom whereby property conferred additional qualifications for voting might be continued. A situation might easily arise whereby people living in towns could own property in rural areas and have representation on those councils, because under the Clause there is a non-resident qualification. I think that we are entitled to an explanation from the Home Secretary. He may be able to satisfy us, but as it stands, I do not think we can be satisfied.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: I wish to support the Home Secretary against the attacks of his followers. He seems to be recognising what I have always understood to be one of the great principles of our constitutional system: that there should be no taxation without representation, and if people have holdings in the country they should be allowed their say when they have to pay rates. I do not think there is any danger of a property qualification creeping in again for national politics. But, as the Home Secretary said, if a man has a holding or estate of any kind in a local government area he should have the right to be heard as to what rate he pays.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I should like the Lord Advocate to look again at Subsection (3). It is quite clear that under Subsection (2) there is one test, whereas under Subsection (3) there are two tests. Under Subsection (2) the test is occupation, and occupation only; but clearly under Subsection (3) the two tests are (1) ownership, and (2) occupation. There is that very important differentiation, which should be examined in order that the second may be reconciled with the first.

Mrs. Braddock: I must support my hon. Friends on the question of the plural vote, which means that a person, although not resident in the area, would have the right to stand for the council merely because


he had a business interest, or occupied office premises. Such a person could be elected a member of the council and determine the policy of the council without residing in the area. In Liverpool some members of the council who have risen to aldermen do not reside in the city, and have no particular interest in the city apart from a commercial one; and in many instances they are the very people who hold back progress which would benefit the residents. Their main concern is the size of the rate, irrespective of providing amenities for the residents.
I thought the principle of abolishing plural voting had been firmly established, and I was very surprised when the clerk to my local authority, the registration officer, drew my attention to the fact that the Bill did away with plural voting only in Parliamentary elections and not in local elections. In municipal or county elections the position is practically the same as before. I hope that the Home Secretary will seriously reconsider this question, because I am certain that there will be grave misgivings among the ranks of our party, particularly among those who have only one vote in the area in which they live, whereas they see others who have the right to vote merely because they possess property qualifications.

Mr. Ede: I shall not deal with the questions asked about Scotland, because Scottish local government law and the Scottish rating system are so different from what applies in England that it would be wrong of me to intervene on that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will deal with the Scottish questions. I intend to confine myself entirely to the English points which have been raised. As I understand the property qualification, it was a qualification given in respect of the ownership of property. This Bill does not give a local government vote in England and Wales for the ownership of property unless the owner resides in the property or carries on his business in the property.
6.30 p.m.
Let us establish that quite clearly from the start. No one gets a vote under this Clause merely because he owns; he must also occupy. I do not think that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) arises. He

said that he occupies an office in Burton-on-Trent in respect of which he pays an inclusive sum, that is a sum including rates. But a great many people in the country also pay an inclusive sum, and if we were to say that my hon. Friend should not have a vote because he does not pay rates directly, that would impinge on the rights of cottagers and others who also pay these inclusive sums.

Mr. Hale: May I point out that we are concerned with a Clause dealing with the non-residential vote?

Mr. Ede: Yes, but my hon. Friend made the point that he was in a different position at Nuneaton than at Burton. I suggest that my hon. Friend would pay less in rent in Nuneaton than in Burton had his tenancy been on the same basis. He pays rates in Burton, whether he pays them directly or indirectly.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) said that this Clause would confer a right to contest an election on a person who has not now that right. This is not a Bill dealing with the qualifications of candidates. There are three qualifications for candidates for local government elections, namely, 12 months' residence, being on the register, or being an owner of property. So far as owners being on local councils are concerned they do not derive their qualifications from this Measure, but from the Local Government Act, 1933.
I thought that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir C. Headlam) put the question quite fairly. If a person pays rates, directly or indirectly, towards the funds of a local authority, I should have thought it was a sound democratic principle that he should have a voice in the way those rates are spent; but he should have only one vote. That, I should have thought, was an incontestable principle. It is true that I have had to guard against giving an occupier's vote to persons who merely have a derisory occupation. No one would suggest that a person who is a tenant on an allotment should, by that fact, have a voice in the affairs of the local authority. That is why I accepted the Amendment to insert the qualification of £10. That does not apply to the ordinary resident. No matter how


miserable the hovel, or how low the rateable value, that person qualifies as a resident and as nothing else.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) said that there might be some occupations which did not involve payment towards the rates. I have undertaken to look into that point, and I will see whether it is possible to find some suitable words to make it clear that persons get this occupation qualification for land or building in respect of which they make contributions to the funds of the local authority concerned. There is no property qualification unless there is occupation which involves the payment of rates, and in order to avoid the creation of "faggot" votes, there is this qualification of £10. It is quite unreasonable to collect rates from occupiers of premises, and then to say to a person that because he occupies the property and resides somewhere else, he is not to be allowed any voice in the way in which the money he has put into the funds of the local authority is expended.

Mr. George Hicks: My right hon. Friend has kindly cleared up the point in regard to plural voting. I understand that, in the case of a local government unit with 12 wards, a man who has a shop in each of the wards will have only one vote at a local government election. Suppose that there were by-elections in each of these wards would he then have the right to record a vote in each case?

Mr. Ede: He can vote only once at the general election of a council and in a by-election. I admit that this is a complication, and I will try to see if we can fasten the vote in that case to one ward, giving the person an opportunity to elect in which ward he will exercise that vote. I think that that is quite a reasonable thing to do.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I find the proposition very extraordinary that, however great a contribution a person may make to the wealth and prosperity of a community, he should not have a say in how that community should be run, unless he actually resides there. The Committee will be aware, after the many interventions of Scottish Members, that in Scotland there are such things as owners' rates as well as occupiers' rates. If we accept the proposition that there

should be no taxation without representation, it is a little difficult not to accept the proposition that an owner should have a vote by reason of the fact that he pays rates, even though he is not in occupation. All Scottish Members know that what is wrong in Scotland is that there should be such things as owners' rates. In the course of this Parliament, we have assimilated much English administration and made many amendments to Scottish law, but in this one case where it would be very much better to amend our law, it has not been done. I have no doubt that if owners were relieved of the necessity of paying rates, they would be willing to be relieved of the privilege of having a vote in respect of their property.

The Lord Advocate: I cannot understand the misgivings and fears in the minds of Scottish Members and in the mind of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). As the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) has just pointed out, the reason for the fundamental distinction in this Clause between Scotland and England is the difference in the rating systems. As the Home Secretary explained, the qualification for this vote arises out of the fact that the person is a ratepayer in the area. Whatever hon. Members may say, once that principle is accepted, we have then to apply it to the respective countries in accordance with the respective rating laws. In England, there is only one form of rating. A person is rated because he is an occupier of premises. In Scotland, we have a dual form of rating, and a person can be rated (a), because he is the owner of premises, or, (b), because he is an occupier of premises. With that in mind, it is easy to understand the difference between Subsections (2) and (3).
I cannot understand the complaints of my hon. Friends the Members for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) and Trades. ton (Mr. Rankin) in regard to the drafting. In Subsection (3, a), if one has regard to the punctuation, it will be seen it is quite clear that the qualification is, (a), being the owner, or, (b), the occupier as tenant of any land or heritage of a value not less than rip. In these circumstances, there is no need for any further consideration or amendment to the drafting. I trust that with that explanation these misgivings will have been allayed.

Mr. Willis: Does it mean that where a person has a number of properties in a town, he may cast a vote in respect of each property? It is fantastic if that is so.

The Lord Advocate: If my hon. Friend reads the Clause with any degree of care, he will see that a person is entitled to only one vote in respect of the one premises either as owner or as tenant. It is clear from the earlier provisions of the Clause that a person has only one vote in any local government area. If my hon. Friend takes the case of his own City of Edinburgh, which has a number of municipal wards, the result will be that a person will be entitled to vote in respect of one ward at any ordinary general election, and will qualify for one vote in respect of any particular premises.

Mr. Keeling: To come back to England. I should like to refer to a remark made by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock), that this non-residential qualification puts her party at a great disadvantage. Speaking of Westminster, I can say that a large number of citizens who vote Labour derive their right to vote from a nonresidential qualification. I might add, as the matter was raised both by the hon. Lady and by the Home Secretary, that the majority of those who sit, either as Communist members or Socialist members on the Westminster City Council, derive their right to vote and their right to sit from a non-residential qualification.

Mr. Paton: The Lord Advocate did not clear up the point which is bothering a number of Scottish Members. Everyone is clear about the question of one man, one vote. What we are not clear about is whether a property can have an occupier vote as well as an ownership vote.

6.45 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: May I try to settle this matter? In the representation of particular property, we may have two types of persons qualified to vote—the person who is the owner or the person who is the occupier. It may be that the person who is the owner is also the occupier, but that does not give him two votes, because they are alternative. Therefore, we have three sets of circumstances which may apply: The owner having a vote, a separate person as a tenant having a vote,

or the owner-occupier having a vote. But there can be only one vote in respect of each class. There may be two votes hi respect of one property, one for the owner and the other for the tenant. The justification for that is that both owner and tenant are ratepayers in Scotland.

Mrs. Mann: I feel that I must join my English colleagues who have protested at the principle embodied in this Clause. I think that it is obvious that this is plural voting of a very bad kind. Hon. Members opposite have stated, and so has my right hon. Friend, that if a man pays rates, he is entitled to get some value out of the particular authority to whom he pays the rates; or, at least, he is entitled to have a voting interest. I would point out that in the interpretation in the Bill relating to Scotland, it is stated that in the case of lands and heritages owned or occupied by a number of persons, the value shall be multiplied or divided by the number on a £10 basis. If it is £70, and there are seven people, there shall be seven votes. In my opinion that is wrong.
It is a Scottish custom, and it is probably an English custom, for many people to have what is known as their coast house. They have their town house and their coast house. The coast house may be rented at £70, and there may be seven members living there at various times on holiday. Their interest there is purely of a holiday nature. In that village or coast town, the local people may require houses, or better drainage, or a hospital; but the people who occupy the £70 house, merely for July and August, are not interested in the building of a hospital, or in a better water supply, and they certainly are definitely opposed, as in cases of which I know, to an extension of housing in the area where they spend their holidays. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For one reason. They do not like the place where they spend their holidays to have too many houses to the acre. These seven people can vote out the interest of the people who are living in that agricultural village or coast town, where they are probably earning their living from fisheries or agriculture. I say that that is fundamentally wrong, and I am glad to join my English friends in opposing it.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Is the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) suggesting that these seven people living on the


coast, who may have a vote in Glasgow, are going to make a special journey to the coast to vote there?

Mrs. Mann: They have done so. A previous Lord Advocate said in June, 1929, that they were "bringing them out of the sea" at Dunoon to vote in the Central Division of Glasgow.

Mr. Gallagher: I am not satisfied with the answer of the Lord Advocate. One can easily have a situation in which owners of property do not wish to vote in their own residential area. The vote there is quite safe, in many cases, for the reactionary on the local authority. They concentrate their voting strength in order to nullify the votes of the progressives in the area where their businesses exist. The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) knows that there are areas around Glasgow where Glasgow business men reside, which are strongholds for the deadheads and reactionaries. When it comes to voting, it is not necessary for them to vote in their particular burghs. They can concentrate all their reactionary votes in the big centres.
Everyone ought to understand what happens in many of the coast resorts. There are people who live in those resorts permanently, and they do not want the working people in their areas. Dunoon is building some houses now. The last I heard about them was that they were to have a rental of £40 a year. The ordinary working class family cannot afford to pay £40 a year rent. We have these people keeping out of the area the poorer section of the community. Those who have a coast house and use it for only part of the year, will go down there and vote in order to prevent anything in the nature of progress taking place in the area. I ask the Lord Advocate, who has a wide knowledge of conditions in Glasgow and Edinburgh, to consider this matter again and to keep the principle of one man, one vote, and qualification on residence. Cut out all this nonsense about business men having special consideration. As soon as we introduce discrimination, we do harm and assist the reactionary.

Mr. McKie: I think that the Lord Advocate made clear to the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton) what are the

three categories who may exercise the vote under the local government franchise according to this Clause. I am sorry to see, particularly from my colleagues from Scotland, the muddle-mindedness which has been shown and the deliberate attempts to mislead the Committee, as to the whole object of this Clause. No one knows better than the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that the local government vote has never been applied in the same way as the Parliamentary vote.

Mr. Gallacher: If a man has a business in a particular burgh and he is making money out of that business, naturally he will pay rates. He is making money out of the burgh and living outside it. He is not interested in the progress of the burgh. Why should he have a vote in that burgh?

Mr. McKie: I cannot be persuaded by such an argument which goes to the whole basis of local government franchise. It is for the very reason that a person is called upon to pay rates in a certain ward or electoral division that he has a local government vote. The hon. Member for West Fife talked about reactionaries, whose votes were not wanted, going out in hordes on polling day to swamp the local electors. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) when she talked about the seven people. I do not know why she chose the number seven. She may have been thinking of the seven brethren in the parable. She said that because seven people are interested in a house, it was wrong that they should automatically have seven votes.

Mrs. Mann: People only vote automatically when they vote conservatively.

Mr. McKie: I hope that I am not doing the hon. Lady an injustice when I say she seems to approach this matter, not from a spirit of desiring to see fair play and to see that those who are called on to pay rates have a right to a say in the affairs of a local area, but simply from the point of view that they may not happen to agree in a political sense with the views which she and her colleagues hold. I hope that the learned Lord Advocate will not be beguiled, but will stand firm against his hon. Friends—I do not need to say anything about this side


of the Committee—with regard to the wording of the Bill.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 22.—(Residence, occupation, etc.)

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 24, line 7, to leave out "period," and to insert "term."
This is a small drafting Amendment. It has the effect that a person will not be entitled to a local government vote as an occupier of a house let to him furnished for a period of less than nine weeks. The Amendment seeks to replace the word "period" by the word "term." I am advised that there might be some possible ambiguity about the word "period" in this respect. What is meant, of course, is the legal term for which the house is let, and not the period of time for which it may possibly be occupied by the tenant under the legal instrument. I should not have thought that there was any very great risk, even with the earlier word, of misunderstanding, but perhaps the best test is that there has been a misunderstanding—that there are some people who did not think it clear. I ask the House, therefore, to accept this small drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gallacher: I beg to move, in page 24, line 7, to leave out from "weeks" to "but," in line 9.
The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that the term "tenant" shall not include a tenant
of any room or rooms let to him furnished and occupied by him as a lodger
and, as a consequence to ensure that as in Parliamentary elections, any such room or rooms occupied by a lodger shall entitle the occupant to participate in municipal elections. We have already discussed the questions of the vote for a business man and of the payment of rates. The payment of rates should not decide the matter in local elections. I want to make that applicable to this particular question: that the payment of rate should not be the decisive factor so far as the vote is concerned because, in the case of

a business man, the rate he is paying is what might be considered a tax on the profits he is making in the borough. He may live entirely outside the borough and the real test for participating in municipal or local elections should not be rates, but residence.
Of course, in the general run of residents the rates will be paid; the great majority of residents will normally pay rates; but the basis of the franchise for local elections should be residence and not rates. It may be that the occupier of a property is able to pay the rates only because there is a lodger who is paying sufficient money for the lodgings as allows the occupier to maintain the house and to pay the rates. That very often happens. It is obvious that a lodger, even though he is not paying rates directly, who is resident in a particular borough, has an interest in local affairs and must be anxious to see progress and development in the borough. There are many lodgers, both married and single, who are keen to see the utmost progress in their boroughs. They are anxious particularly that houses and schools should be built, and it is highly undesirable that such people, who are residents of a borough by virtue of their occupying rooms as lodgers, should be deprived of the right to participate in the affairs of the local authority, and that they should be denied an opportunity of voting.

Mr. Ede: It is difficult to imagine a non-resident lodger. There may be such people, however, and it was to avoid one of them accidentally turning up and getting a vote that these words were included. The resident is entitled to a vote, but there is also the kind of case of which I will quote an example. On the qualifying day a man might happen accidentally to be in a place where he is not normally resident, but he lodges there for the night or for a day or two. If these words were not included he might acquire a local government vote in respect of his accidental presence in, let us say, a seaside resort; similarly, a commercial traveller might acquire such a vote in an industrial town. I do not think that that is what the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) wanted the franchise for and I would suggest to him that, inasmuch as the resident for whom he has pleaded gets a vote in respect of his residence, it is desirable that we should


exclude the possibility that there should be the creation of some snap votes, perhaps purposely, or some other votes, perhaps accidentally, merely through a particular person being in lodgings on the qualifying day.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the explanation of the Home Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. Corbet: I beg to move, in page 24, line 12, at the end, to insert:
and the yearly value of any land or premises shall be determined in accordance with Section eighty of the Local Government Act, 1929 (which provides for determining it for the purposes of the Representation of the People Act, 1918).
This Amendment is consequential on that to Clause 21 which was accepted by my right hon. Friend. It simply seeks to determine within the year the method of valuing the premises in question.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Sargood: I beg to move, in page 24, line 14, to leave out from "in," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert:
An electoral area in England or Wales each of the joint occupiers shall be treated as occupying land or premises therein of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds, if the aggregate yearly value of the land or premises is not less than the amount produced by multiplying ten pounds by the number of joint occupiers.
This Amendment also is consequential, as the right hon. Gentleman has agreed o accept the former Amendment to make the annual yearly value a figure of £10. In instances where land or premises are owned or occupied by joint occupiers, it seeks to make the aggregate yearly value such a sum as would be equal to an amount arrived at by multiplying £10 by the number of joint occupiers. Thus it would be maintaining the principle that was conceded in the former Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 24, line 25, to leave out "or any lodgings."
This is a consequential Amendment to the one we made in Clause 21, whereby Subsection (3, b) was deleted.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 24, line 28, leave out from "is," to end of line.

In line 31, leave out from "occupying," to first "of," in line 33, and insert:
as the case may be, lands and heritages.

In line 44, leave out "and,".

In line 44, at end, insert:
(b) the expression 'tenant,' shall not include a tenant of any room or rooms let to him furnished and occupied by him as a lodger."—[The Lord Advocate.]

In page 24, line 47, at end, add:
and
(c) the expression 'yearly value' in relation to any lands and heritages shall mean in the case where the lands and heritages are separately entered in the valuation roll the gross annual value appearing therein, and in any other case the gross annual value which would in the opinion of the registration officer be entered in the valuation roll, if the lands and heritages were separately entered therein."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mrs. Mann: I would like some clarification of the Amendments which have been made to the Clause. Am I right in assuming that a family who take a yearly house at the coast at a rent of £100 can, even where there are To members of the family, qualify for votes in that coast town year by year, while, if the family merely take furnished lodgings in the town year by year, not one of them will have a vote? May I have an answer?

The Lord Advocate: The position is clear that the qualification applies only to joint owners or joint occupiers of premises with an annual value of such an amount that if it is divided by the number of people the answer is £10 or more. Accordingly, to qualify one must be an owner or an occupier at the qualifying date. Subject to that reservation, the answer is "Yes."

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I was not at all satisfied with the reply I received on the last Clause, so I would like to raise two points which come up again on this Clause. As I understand the matter, owners of property in a city like Edinburgh might live in Midlothian. Their property might be occupied by people also resident in Midlothian. Both the occupier and the owner would have local government votes in


Edinburgh. Under the Clause, as I understand it, if the house is occupied jointly by four people and the rental is £40 a year, all these people might live in Midlothian and yet have votes in Edinburgh. The situation is quite common in the centre of Edinburgh. A large amount of property there is owned by people living outside the city, as one can see by looking at the Register. If the property is not only occupied, but is owned jointly by 4 or 5 people, dual votes can be exercised by people resident outside Edinburgh in local government elections inside Edinburgh. That situation applies to every large town in Scotland.
I would not like this opportunity to pass without expressing my opposition to this arrangement. It might be true that they pay rates, but it is time that a Socialist Government looked at this matter again and found a more satisfactory basis for local election votes than the present one. I have no doubt that it can be done if a little application is given to the problem. The present position is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Gallacher: I have had experience of people owning or occupying a house at the coast. In the West of Scotland it is very common for people in cities or towns to own or occupy houses at the coast. They will occupy them for a very short period, and then they rent them out to holiday-makers during the summer. Because they occupy them for a time, they have votes, as owners or tenants of the property. [An HON. MEMBER: "They pay rates."] They are able to pay rates because somebody occupies the house for a month and pays exceptionally big money for doing so, as much money in a month as the owner or tenant will pay for a year's rent and rates. The person who occupies the house for a month does not get a vote.
The Lord Advocate knows that if he goes to the west coast of Scotland and gets occupancy of a house for a month, he will pay a very large sum of money. If the Lord Advocate makes inquiries he will find that the tenant of the property is not paying as much in rent and rates for a year as he pays for a month's residence in that house. Yet it is the tenant who gets the vote and not the temporary occupier. I have not got the money to

do that sort of thing, but I go to the coast for a fortnight in the summer when I get a chance, and I know what has to be paid. There are people who go down to the coast for a month every year and they make it possible for the tenant of a house to pay the rent and rates. It is about time that sort of thing stopped.
The one thing that the tenants of such houses do not want is an increase in rent and rates in these coastal places. Therefore, they do not want any sort of development in these areas. Anyone who goes to many of these coast resorts will find that there is very urgent need for development. Many of them are slum areas, apart from boarding houses and other houses which are let off for summer residence. The slum conditions in some of these seaside resorts are terrible, and there is a great need for the provision of new conditions for the people in these areas. The one thing that the tenants of these houses are concerned about is to prevent any development which would put an extra 1d. on the rates. Yet the people who pay big money for occupying these houses in the summer have no say as to how the rates in these areas should be spent.

Mr. McKie: I think I should be interpreting accurately what was said by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) if I said that he appears to be in favour of invading the rights of private property. I do not deny that there may be many cases of sub-let in coast resorts in Scotland, but I suggest that these cases are freely negotiated between the occupier or the first tenant and the person or persons who take on the sub-lease. That is purely a matter between those persons. If the owner or the tenant does not desire to sublet, it is open to the owner or the tenant to insert a clause in the lease providing that there shall be no sub-let. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Fife was not aware of that, but I can assure him that that is the case. Therefore, his remarks about the person who takes a sub-lease and pays a very large rent, and yet has no interest whatever in the affairs of the local authority, fall completely to the ground. I am sorry that I cannot agree with the hon. Member. People who occupy these places desire to partake of the health-giving facilities there, and it is not in the interests of the tenants of such property to frustrate the due advancement and progress in the conditions of all those who


normally reside all the year round within the ambit of the local authority concerned.
The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) approached this matter from a rather different angle—in fact, a more dangerous angle—than did the hon. Member for West Fife. Although the Lord Advocate will have no difficulty whatever in disposing of that argument, the hon. Member for North Edinburgh cited the case of persons who might own a house or premises within the City of Edinburgh and who live outwith the boundaries of the City, in the adjacent county of Midlothian or in any other county that lies nearby. He said he could not conceive why a Socialist Government should attempt to maintain that sort of thing; in other words, that all questions of equity in rating should go by the board.

Mr. Willis: There is no equity.

Mr. McKie: The hon. Gentleman says there is no equity. I think there is. I think it is equitable that a person who owns premises, whether it is house property or other property—

Mr. Willis: If I may interrupt, let us take the case of property owned jointly by five people resident outside the city. In the same property we have one occupier who lives within the city, but if the total rent is £50, the five people who live outside the city have five votes in that city as compared with the one person living there.

Mr. McKie: The hon. Gentleman must persuade his Government to bring in a Bill for the complete overhaul of the rating system in Scotland. If he did so, he might obtain considerable support from hon. Members on this side of the Committee for those proposals which we regard as fair and equitable. Many of us take the view that the rating system in Scotland leaves much to be desired. I come back now to the point to which I was addressing myself when the hon Member interrupted me and when I so readily gave way to him; namely, that we on this side of the Committee cannot assent to his view with regard to the prohibition of people who own premises within the City of Edinburgh and who live somewhere else. The hon. Member says they ought to be debarred. He says he thinks it is a scandal—he got rather emphatic towards the end of his remarks—that a Socialist Government

should maintain that kind of thing. I consider those remarks somewhat dangerous.
We do not know what may come in the future, because the tail very often wags the dog—we have had one or two illustrations of that recently—and I sincerely hope that those who are responsible for piloting this Bill will not agree with the hon. Gentleman's argument that this is a disgrace upon Socialist administration, but that even though they are Socialists themselves, they will, at all events, remember that there is such a thing as equity and fair play. I hope they will agree to this Clause remaining as it is at present and will not seek to amend it.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I hope we may be allowed to get this Clause. I have been listening to the arguments, and it seems to me that every time we want to carry through certain legislation somebody introduces a widow and orphan who will be affected by it. Beneficial legislation is stopped, because we are told a widow and orphan will suffer. It may be that there are such freakish cases as have been mentioned, but none has come to the notice of my office, and no complaints have come from the constituencies in which these cases are said to exist. I think it will be agreed that the cases where 10 people will arrange to be joint occupiers or owners of houses will be extremely freakish, and are unlikely to exist in any number. The picture of the whole of Glasgow taking a special train down to Prestwick for the municipal election there would be a fantastic one. The matter has been presented out of all proportion. If actual cases of this taking place are brought to my notice I will be pleased to go into them, but so far they have not been brought to my notice either by the constituencies affected or by anyone else.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Williams: What does my right hon. Friend propose to do when he looks into them?

Mr. Woodburn: We will look into them, but it is bad to legislate on the basis of particular cases. A general principle is concerned there. I think that what my hon. Friends are forgetting is that what was done in the last Representation of the People Act after the Speaker's Conference was the first occasion upon which


a residential qualification entitled a person to a local government vote. Prior to that time it was entirely a property vote, and what was done was a great step forward. There is no reason why, in doing justice to residents who are not occupiers or owners, we should do injustice to people who play an important part in the community and pay rates. I think non. Gentlemen opposite would be only too pleased to do away with the owners' vote if we would do away with the owners' rates.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 23.—(Registration.)

Mr. Gallacher: I beg to move, in page 25, line 2, after "prepare," to insert "and publish."
There are two further Amendments standing in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin). They are connected, and with permission, I will deal with them at the same time. All three Amendments are connected with the proposed register. The second of these Amendments is, in line 8, at the end, to insert:
and such two registers shall be published together.
I do not know the intention in the preparing of the register as it is presented in the Bill—whether it is just to be prepared by the registration officer and kept by his side, or what is to be done. I and my colleague consider that the Bill should definitely provide that the register should not only be prepared, but that the register of local government electors should be prepared and published and that, in the terms of the second Amendment,
the two registers shall so far as practicable be combined, the names of persons registered only as local government electors being marked to indicate that fact, and such two registers shall be published together.
We consider it important to make matters as easy as possible for those who are interested in participating in local government elections and to ensure that they know exactly where they stand as between their voting rights in a Parliamentary election and their voting rights in a local government election. In our third Amendment, we propose, in line 11, to leave out "qualifying date," and to

insert "date of publication of the register." It will be seen that this, Amendment would make subsection (3) read:
The elections for which any register of local government electors is to be used shall be determined by reference to the date of publication of the register in the same way as in the case of the register of parliamentary electors.
We feel that if these Amendments were accepted the position of local government electors and their relation to Parliamentary elections would be made abundantly clear. There would be every opportunity for them to see the published register, to compare the two registers and to know that the date was related to the actual publication of the register concerned.

Mr. Ede: This Amendment is really unnecessary. There will not in fact be two registers if by that is meant two separate volumes with the names of electors inscribed therein. Owing to the alteration that was made during the war the Parliamentary and local government registers are now almost exactly the same, and when the Parliamentary register is published it will in fact be the main basis of the local government register. There are, of course, a few people who are entitled to vote as local government electors who are not entitled to vote as Parliamentary electors. Peers of the Realm are entitled to vote as local government electors but not as Parliamentary electors. There will be a few of the non-resident voters who we have included by the last two Clauses who will be similarly entitled to vote. The way in which their names will appear and be marked will be governed by the regulations which we shall issue under, the Bill, directing registration officers as to the way in which they shall compile one single volume which shall be used for Parliamentary and local government electors, certain persons being marked as local government electors only. These will not be entitled to record their vote at Parliamentary elections.
Therefore, the publication of the local government register will be the publication of the Parliamentary register, subject to the regulations which I have just described. It would not add anything to the Bill to insert the words which are proposed in the Amendment. In fact,


they might be held to compel the publication of two volumes which would be almost identical and might lead to confusion. While I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing our attention to the matter, I suggest that the point is met in the altered circumstances of the electoral law of the future.

Mr. Gallacher: Very often we have found that many people in the localities have experienced great difficulty in discovering how they stood in regard to Parliamentary and local government elections, respectively. However, in view of the explanation given by the Home Secretary, and trusting that the regulations will be helpful in this respect, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 25, line II, to leave out "qualifying date," and to insert "date fixed for the poll."
This is a drafting Amendment to bring this Clause into line with the corresponding provision in Clause 5 (1) relating to Parliamentary elections.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I beg to move, in line 15, to leave out "an elector," and to insert "electors."

This is merely a matter of grammar.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 25, line 37, to leave out "Subsection," and to insert "Subsections (3) and."
This Amendment is to correct a small drafting error. In cases where the register is not published on the due date, the old register remains in force until the new register is published. That provision already exists in regard to Parliamentary elections and it clearly ought also to apply to local government elections.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 24.—(Place and manner of voting as elector.)

Mr. Gibson: I beg to move, in page 25, line 45, to leave out:
or as non-residents.
The proposal here to give the opportunity of a postal vote to non-residents is quite unjustifiable. There is a provision in the Clause for postal voting for various

categories of people which seem to be quite reasonable, but merely because a person is in the non-resident category and, therefore, has very little interest in the constituency and in local government matters, except perhaps that he owns a small shop, seems quite an unjustifiable reason. I am advised that if a person owns a grave space in a constituency he would be entitled to go on the register. If a non-resident wishes to take part in the local government elections we are entitled, surely, to expect that he will show as much interest in the affairs of the local authority for which the election is being conducted as the people who are living in the area.
As I understand this proposal, somebody living miles away and not interested or caring about the circumstances or the issues of the election can, by merely posting his vote to the returning officer, take part in the election. It seems entirely wrong. This Amendment makes no difference to the quite proper provisions for a number of other people, such as those who are ill and ex-Service men. In a long experience of local government work in London I have never heard of anyone asking for this privilege—because it would be a privilege. If non-residents want to vote in a local election they should be prepared to come to the polling booth and cast their votes.

Mr. Ede: I do not think the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson) could have been in the Committee when I dealt with this point before. I pointed out then that the ownership of a grave space gave no right to a vote. This is an occupying vote, and the candidates might experience great difficulty in ascertaining to what address they should send any literature for the occupier of a grave space. I doubt even if doing what we do in some local government matters, and nailing a copy of the address on the tombstone, could be regarded as effective service of it. If we give people a vote we must give them reasonable facilities for exercising it. These people are occupiers. They may be nonresident occupiers, but, at the same time, they are occupiers of premises within the local government area. Having given them a vote, it seems to me that they should have exactly the same facilities for exercising it as have other persons who are placed on the register. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to accept the Amendment.

7.45 P.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to support the Amendment, because I have one down of the same character. Here we have something which comes right back to what the Secretary of State for Scotland referred to earlier. In the recent discussion, in trying to ridicule some argument put up by the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) and myself, he painted a picture of Glasgow people crowding the trains to come down to vote at Prestwick. They do not need to crowd the trains. All they have to do is to adopt the postal vote. It is no use the Home Secretary just walking away from this as if it meant nothing. We have the fact that literally hundreds of businessmen who have premises of one kind or another in Glasgow, are living outside. One can see trains, not crowded with Glasgow people going down to vote at Prestwick, but crowded with Glasgow business people going down to Helens-burgh, or some other suburban area where they live. They have no connection with Glasgow life. They have no interest in the progress of Glasgow. They are going to get a vote and they do not even have to go to Glasgow to register their vote. Obviously, this is wrong.
We can understand the desirability of postal voting for men in the Services or for those who have been stricken with illness. But these people are not resident in the community. They reside outside, and are given the vote simply because they have a business which is making money out of the community.
The rates are only an incidental feature. They are not in the community in order to pay rates, they are there to make money out of the community. They are not interested in the progress of the community. Not even the Secretary of State for Scotland would dare to get up and say that these people who live outside the borough where their businesses are are concerned with paying rates or the progress of the community.
They are concerned with making money out of the community and the rate is simply a tax on the profits which they are getting. They should not be considered at all for a vote, but if they are considered let them come and register their vote. Do not give them a special privilege of taking money out of the community and, on the strength of that and living in some suburban area entirely

divorced from the city, include them with the man who is in the Services. I think that is utterly undesirable. I would ask the Home Secretary to think again and accept the Amendment to exclude nonresidents, such as these from participating in the privilege of the postal vote.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has argued his case under a misapprehension. The Bill says:
… except in so far as this section makes exceptions for—
It is only in so far as this Clause makes exceptions that the non-resident can vote by post. I did not raise the question of people rushing down to Prestwick. That was raised by one of my hon. Friends. I merely pointed out that that was rather an exaggerated picture. If the hon. Gentleman will read the whole Clause, he will find that he is not arguing against it, because it agrees with what he says. He mentioned people who had shops in towns and spoke about whether or not they had any interest in the place. I think he exaggerates when he says that people who earn their living in a place have no interest in it. That would be a most exaggerated picture of the shopkeepers of the country. Many of them would like to live near their shops but they may not be able to get a house there and may have to live as far away as Helensburgh. Everybody who performs a useful service to the community is a useful person and is entitled to consideration whatever his occupation may be.

Mrs. Corbet: I wish the Home Secretary would reconsider this matter. If the non-resident is to be qualified as a voter he should have proper facilities. I am worried whether it is right to give him those facilities automatically without subjecting him to the same tests as everybody else. I fear that we shall get a number of people like my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) who told us that he is in occupation of a number of offices throughout the country. We shall get a number of people who will be able to send postal votes to many different places. I apprehend that we may not get the same domesticity in local government affairs that we have had in the past. We should consider this matter seriously in view of the importance we attach to local electors being genuinely interested in the domestic


affairs of the local government area and not being influenced by the national situation or anything of that kind.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would be possible to make a reasonable provision for non-resident voters without allowing them to have something which is unwarranted. In the past there has been a decided demand for postal voting facilities for the sick and the blind. I am afraid that even the provisions of this Bill will not meet those demands in full. There must be application for a postal vote, and people do not know when they will be ill and may not apply for postal facilities. The category mentioned in this Clause will know that they will be absent and they will be non-resident voters. They will have an advantage over people who do not know whether they will be ill.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: There is a good deal to be said for this Amendment. The primary object of local government is that the people engaged in it should be directly interested and that they should not live far away from the district. The Secretary of State for Scotland was not very convincing. He talked about qualifications for non-resident voters being set out in the Clause. The qualification to which he referred concerns dual addresses. If the address to which the communication is to be sent is in the same area as the qualifying address, the person does not become a non-resident voter. The Secretary of State referred to the case of a man carrying on business but unable to find a house in the same area. His residential address is not in the same area as the qualifying address and he qualifies as a non-residential voter. Why should he qualify? Presumably he takes an active interest in his business. He goes to business every day. He has only taken a house outside the district because he cannot get one inside. If he has a sufficient interest to go there daily for business purposes, why should he not go there to vote?
Another case concerns the man who has a house outside the area and who has a business qualification within the area but never attends the business. If he has not a sufficient interest to take him there for business purposes, why should he be given a vote at all? He is a complete absentee. Those are two totally different cases. I do not see why special privilege should be given. This is not the same

position as that which applies at a Parliamentary election. Different considerations arise there. The essential consideration in local government is that a person should have an interest in local affairs, but this brings in the person who does not show an active interest.

Mr. Gibson: I support the plea made by the hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet) that the Home Secretary should consider this matter further. I agree that if we give people the vote we must make it possible for them to exercise that vote. There are in London a number of shops which are rented. Presumably the owners of those shops would be entitled to vote at local elections. Many of them live in Brighton. If they are not sufficiently interested while their shops are open to go to the booth on polling day to cast their vote, why should they have a postal vote? This provision gives them a privilege. If a man is a service voter or if he is blind, it is reasonable and proper that a postal vote should be given. In other cases it is unreasonable. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter further.

Mr. Ede: I am always willing to consider matters further in the light of argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson) again talked about people who own shops. A man may own the whole of a borough and if he does not occupy some premises within it he does not get a vote. This has nothing to do with the ownership of a dozen shops. This is a question of occupation. I will examine this subject in the light of the Debate, but I am bound to say that if we give a person a vote—and we have done that by a previous Clause—we must see that he has reasonable facilities for exercising his right.

Mr. Gibson: In view of the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 26, line if, at the end, to insert:
(iv) at an ordinary election, the fact that that person is returning officer, deputy returning officer or acting as returning officer at an ordinary election of councillors for some other electoral area;
(v) at an ordinary election, the particular circumstances of that person's employment on


the date of the poll by the returning officer at an ordinary election of councillors for some other electoral area for a purpose connected with the election in that area.
This Amendment proposes to add one more to the category of persons entitled to apply to vote by post. It is in similar terms to previous Amendments to Clause 8, which were accepted by the Committee, in respect of Parliamentary elections. This merely applies the same provision to local government elections.

Amendment agreed to.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 26, line 24, at the end, to insert:
(3) A person not registered as a Service voter if unable or likely to be unable to go in person to the polling station by reason either—

(a) of the general nature of his occupation, service or employment; or
(b) of his service as a member of any of His Majesty's Reserve or Auxiliary Forces

may vote by proxy if he applies to be treated as an absent voter and is likely to be at sea or out of the United Kingdom on the date of the poll.
This Amendment would give the same facilities for voting by proxy at local government elections as Clause 8 of this Bill gives for voting at Parliamentary elections. We cannot see any case for restricting the right of voting by proxy at a local government election, and we therefore propose that the right should be extended to persons who are unable or likely to be unable to go in person to the polling station by reason of the general nature of their occupation, service or employment, or by virtue of their service in His Majesty's Reserve or Auxiliary Forces.

Mr. Ede: I have examined this Amendment very carefully, because, quite frankly, I would very much like to meet the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. The difficulty is a purely administrative one, and, if I can overcome it between now and the Report stage, I will endeavour to find a form of words that I can put into the Bill. The local government franchise, especially in the county areas, is a much more complicated thing than the Parliamentary franchise. A person may be entitled to vote, especially in view of the arrangements that have been made for non-resident voters, in respect of a non-county borough or an urban or rural district, but not in respect of the county

council in regard to the same qualifications, because he has another qualification in another part of the county.
If I were to accept this Amendment, it would involve so complicated a system of marking the register in certain cases as to make the administrative difficulties of compiling the register quite considerable. It might also lead to people turning up thinking they had the right to exercise a proxy vote on behalf of someone when, in fact, they had not. If I can find a simple way of ensuring that the elector shall, at any rate in respect of his residence vote, have the right to vote by proxy, I will have it done, but I am bound to say that I shall not be able to carry it through and give the right to the man who has a non-resident vote like the person described by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) who seems to be something like Oliver Cromwell and never spends two nights running in the same bed. I do not think I could arrange to meet the case of that person, but I will endeavour to see if, for the comparatively simple case of the resident voter, I can meet the right hon. Gentleman's wishes.

Mr. Peake: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 26, line 38, leave out "An absent voter," and insert:
At an election for which a person's application to be treated as an absent voter is allowed, he."—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 26, line 47, to leave out from first "elections," to end of line 48.
The point raised here is that postal voting at local government elections is allowed in urban districts and boroughs and not allowed in rural districts. We find it rather difficult to understand this discrimination, because, having regard to geography, we had thought it more reasonable that postal voting should be allowed in the rural districts rather than in the boroughs, if there is to be any distinction at all. We put down this Amendment in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining why this differentiation in postal voting is in the Bill.

Mr. Ede: The Amendment would allow postal voting at both rural district and parish council elections in England and Wales, as well as at the local government elections for county boroughs and urban district councils. I think it would be very difficult to arrange for a very complicated system of elections to be carried out in connection with parish councils, because they are carried out over the whole of the county on the same day and they make a considerable strain on the resources of the competent people who conduct elections. On occasion, the persons concerned in a particular parish council election are not people of a very high calibre, and a complicated election there might lead to great difficulties in getting a satisfactory result.
With regard to rural district council elections, I am bound to say that what has happened during the progress of this Bill has been somewhat extraordinary. I have consulted the Rural District Councils' Association, and they have assured me that they do not desire this provision to be made, but I understand that other people, who shall be nameless, have also approached them and have said that they did not mind one way or the other. I think that it would be unwise to use postal voting for parish council elections. After all, in view of the amount of work that a parish council can do, although it is rather greater than was described by Lord Salisbury when dealing with the 1890 Act, when he said that they could buy an ordnance survey map for the parish and study it, I suggest that it is not desirable that these facilities should apply to parish council elections. I will get in touch again with the Rural District Councils' Association to ascertain if their objections to being brought within the scope of this Clause have been removed, and, if they have, I will put down an Amendment on the Report stage to bring in rural district council elections.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has not closed his mind on this point, but I hope that he will not confine his discussions merely to the Rural District Councils' Association. After all, it is not merely the councils who are concerned; it is the electors, or the potential electors. I do not think it would be right for this Committee, which represents those electors, merely to say that we will support the Home Secretary in introducing this additional facility if

the Rural District Councils' Association concurs. We are entitled to go further and discuss the matter on its merits, whether the association likes it or not, because we are concerned with the rights of people who may desire to vote at these elections. There are a good many cases where there is little difference between an urban district and a rural district, and, in many cases, as a result of recent developments, it is a difference in name and in very little else. The case having been rightly admitted for urban districts, it seems to me that it is quite indefensible to exclude rural districts. Before we pass from this Amendment I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say that he will consider the matter on its merits and will not allow the Rural District Councils Association to introduce any sort of veto. We have had enough vetoes of one sort or another recently and do not want any more. I hope we may have that assurance from the Home Secretary.

Mr. Benn Levy: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been very conciliatory over this Clause and I rise only because, as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) mentions, he seemed to be making his assent dependent on the advice of the Rural District Councils' Association. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that there is a point of principle here which should be decided independently. As I understood it, the only objection to the inclusion of rural district councils was one of expediency, but surely that argument really applies only to parish councils. In fact, there is generally no more difficulty in applying postal voting to rural districts than there is in applying it to urban districts. If I may just correct my right hon. Friend on one small point, I believe it is true that when the Rural District Councils' Association in the first place agreed that postal voting was unnecessary, they did not realise at the time that the privilege was to be granted to urban districts. It is quite reasonable that their view could change if they felt they were to be excluded from what was accepted by the House of Commons as a proper principle.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: May I make one plea to the Home Secretary? I appreciate that this is a matter to which he has had no occasion as yet to apply the full weight of his mind and, therefore,


we cannot anticipate any final reply this evening, but I hope he will be able to see our point of view in this connection. Rural district councils are, to all intents and purposes, very similar to urban district councils, and to this extent there can surely be no objection to rural districts having the right of postal voting in the same way as urban districts. That applies to those councils which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) mentioned.
Other rural district councils may be very rural indeed, so the argument is much stronger because in time of election I should have thought those in the very rural areas would be more greatly helped by postal voting to achieve representative results than would any urban district. For those reasons I hope that the Home Secretary will consider the matter further, and will not be put off by the one reason which I consider is the only one which can be advocated against giving postal voting in rural areas—administrative inconvenience. After all, voting was given for the benefit of the representatives of the people and not for the convenience or inconvenience of those who—unhappily for themselves, very often—have to administer the election. I hope, therefore, that the old excuse of administrative difficulty or administrative inconvenience will not be allowed to weigh in the Home Secretary's mind.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I can assure the Committee that it will not be the opinion of the Rural District Councils' Association which will be the final determining factor in my mind. In spite of what was said by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), it is sometimes very difficult in the very rural districts to get a sufficient number of qualified persons to conduct the elections in the parishes which comprise the rural district. As a rule, one-third of the members of the rural district are elected every year, and it generally means that approximately one-third of the parishes in the rural district are subject to an election each year. Where the rural district consists possibly of a couple of dozen or even more parishes, that sometimes makes a severe drain on the staff of the clerk of the rural district council who is the returning

officer and who has to provide presiding officers, poll clerks and other people.
If this facility is granted, I desire that the postal vote shall be effective. I have participated in two elections in which postal votes were used—the General Elections of 1918 and 1945—and I am bound to say that in that of 1918 there were considerable complaints that a large number of the votes which were recorded by post arrived after the result had been declared. I am sure that is something which no one wishes to happen.
May I say, in my own defence, that this matter was discussed at a meeting at which all the local authorities' associations were represented, and it was known at that time and at that meeting, therefore, who were likely to get the facilities of postal voting. At that time it was quite clear that both boroughs and urban districts would be included. I will consider the matter in regard to rural districts, and if I can work out a practicable scheme which will be administratively possible in practically every area of the country, I will endeavour to bring it in for the rural districts.

Mr. Grimston: The Home Secretary has been conciliatory on this point and I think we agree with him that it would be unreasonable to press this matter in relation to parish councils. He has also seized the point raised by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy), that we are very jealous that our course of action should not be dictated to us by outside bodies. In view of what the Home Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 27, line 3, at the end, to add:
(8) In this and the next following Section, references to employment by a returning officer shall be taken as including, in relation to elections in a borough in England or Wales other than a metropolitan borough, references to employment by the mayor or any person acting in place of the mayor by virtue of paragraph 10 of Part 1 of the local elections rules.
In the early part of this Clause the right to vote by post at local government elections is given to certain officials employed in connection with the election by the returning officer. That does not cover the officials employed in that capacity


in boroughs divided into wards; they are employed not by the returning officer, but by the mayor. This new Subsection, therefore, is required to cover that case In all essentials, their position is exactly the same as those people employed elsewhere by the returning officer.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Gallacher: I was very much struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) when he said we were very jealous that our affairs should not be determined by outside bodies. I hope that this was also the view of the opposite side of the Committee when the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that, at the request of the F.B.I., he was removing the advertisement tax from the Finance Act. The Home Secretary said that these facilities for postal voting for non-residents applied to occupiers. The hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson) and myself said that occupiers were people who occupied premises, for business reasons—maybe a shop, warehouse or something of that kind. But they have managers and assistants to run the places, and they live all their lives down at Brighton.
Another feature of this Clause is that the further away from the borough the occupier is, the better chance he has of getting a postal vote. A voter is not allowed a postal vote if he is resident in the area. I would ask the Home Secretary to look at these two points again. We have been dealing with occupiers of shops and businesses who live well outside the borough—people, as the hon. Member for Kennington said, who have their businesses in London and their homes in Brighton. According to Subsection (3), those who live near where they have their business, and have a better chance of knowing what is going on in the borough, are not allowed a postal vote, but only those who are divorced from the borough.

Mr. Grimston: As the Communist Party has referred to me, I rise merely to point out to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that there is a difference between being dictated to and accepting a request because one thinks it is reasonable.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 25.—(Voting by post by absent voters.)

Amendments made: In page 27, line 12, at end, insert:
(b) the fact that the applicant is returning officer, deputy returning officer or acting as returning officer in some other electoral area; or.

In line 15, leave out "the," and insert "a."—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 27, line 22, after "treated," to insert:
or, in the case of a person registered as a non-resident, for a ballot paper not to be sent to the address furnished by him.
This and the next Amendment relate to the circumstances in which a postal voting application will cease to have effect. The first concerns the person who asks that it should cease to have effect, and the second concerns the person who is already registered, and becomes registered by virtue of different qualifications—from being a resident to being a non-resident voter, or vice versa.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 24, after "registered," insert:
as a resident instead of a non-resident or vice versa or."—[Mr. Younger.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 26.—(Service voters' proxies.)

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 28, line 6, to leave out Subsection (4).
I think I can describe quite briefly the point we raise here. Under Clause with respect to Parliamentary elections, a Service voter's proxy can exercise the proxy vote even although he does not reside in the same area as the Service voter. Under this Clause it would appear that the Service voter's proxy cannot exercise the proxy vote unless he does reside in the same electoral area. We do not understand the difference, and it seems to us that it should be possible for Service voters' proxies in local government elections to have the same privilege of exercising the proxies as they have in the Parliamentary elections.

Mr. Ede: I think there is a distinction between the two. After all, at a Parliamentary election, the proxy voter will be voting on national issues, and he will be able to judge how the person for whom he is voting would like him to vote, because national issues are the same from


one end of the country to the other. If he is not residing in the same local government area, he may not have any knowledge of the issues that are at stake in the local government election in the area in which the vote has to be recorded. He is not like the non-resident voter, with whom we have been dealing for a great part of the day, who has premises within the local government area, and has some connection with the place, and may be presumed, at any rate, to have some acquaintance with the issues involved. This non-resident proxy voter may have no connection with the area at all. We think, therefore, that in these circumstances it is not advisable to give the same power to the proxy of the Service voter in local elections.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: While one quite sees the force of the point which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, will it not frequently mean duplication of proxies? As the right hon. Gentleman says, it is quite open to the Service voter to appoint somebody in some other constituency, some other local government area, as his proxy for a national election. Very likely he will do that, because that one happens to be a particular friend or a relative. But this Clause as it stands will mean having a double proxy, and there will be muddle; there will be proxies for national elections and others for local government elections. Whether this will be made plain to the Service voters by the Service authorities or anyone else I very much doubt.
I am sure that any system which requires duplication of proxies will lead to quite unnecessary difficulties. Therefore, while I fully appreciate the force of the argument that the right hon. Gentleman has put forward, I do suggest that, from a practical point of view, there is even greater force in the argument for simplicity. One may take it that a man who is appointed a proxy for a local government election will not reside very far away. It is very improbable that anyone would travel a long way for a local government election. He may live just over the boundary, in which case he will probably know as much about local affairs where the election is going on as if he lived in the area. Therefore, on balance, the right hon. Gentleman need not fear distant residents coming in, because they will not

travel long distances for local elections except in most exceptional cases. The people who will do the voting by proxy will be people who live only just over the boundary. Therefore, while appreciating the hon. Gentleman's argument, I suggest that there is an even stronger argument on the other side.

Mr. Ede: I have listened to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I will consult as to whether the need for simplicity—which, I admit, is very important in the question of compiling registers, and so on—outweighs the advantages which may arise in certain cases.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 27.—(Amendments of local elections rules.)

8.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, in page 28, line 39, after "election," to insert:
or otherwise of the local elections rules.
Perhaps we might discuss at the same time the following Amendment—in line 40, to leave out from "that," to end of line 42, and insert:
the election was so conducted as to be substantially in accordance with the law as to elections and that the act or omission did not affect its result.
These Amendments arise out of the discussion we had on Clause 12. Hon. Members will recall that, as we found during that discussion, there is in the Ballot Act, 1872, a provision which provided—I am paraphrasing it, and not reading out the whole—that if it appeared that an election was conducted in accordance with the principles contained in the body of the Act and the irregularity, whatever it was, did not affect the result, the tribunal might act accordingly. The intention of that statute was apparenly to draw some distinction between the principles contained in the Act itself and the rules which were enumerated in the Schedule. That may have been a convenient thing to do when the Ballot Act, 1872, was passed, but it has ceased to be so now, because in the Local Government Act the words "in the body of the Act" have been left out, and the whole of the election procedure was included in the relevant Schedules


to that Act without any attempt being made to distinguish between provisions which might be thought to embody principles and provisions which did not. In fact, of course, however one attempts to deal with this matter there seems to be great difficulty in drawing any distinction between rules which are to be regarded as principles affecting the validity of the whole election and rules which are to be regarded as merely procedural, and which will not upset the election.
Many attempts seem to have been made to classify, on the one hand, the different classes of irregularity whch may void elections, and, on the other hand, those which, although they remain irregularities, will not upset the election. What appears to be clear from these attempts is that it cannot be done by trying to press any distinction between irregularities which are irregularities in principle and irregularities which are something less than that. The real thing, as the Government think, is to look at the whole course of the election rather than at some particular incident which may have occurred in it—some individual breach of some particular requirement—and then to ascertain whether, substantially, the election was conducted in accordance with the law. If it were—although there may have been minor mistakes—by and large, conducted in accordance with the requirements of the law, and if it is clear that such mistakes as did occur did not in any way affect the ultimate result of the election, then the tribunal ought not to void the election.
We have sought to embody that kind of principle in the new wording of this Clause. We respectfully agree with the view expressed during our discussions on Clause 12, that the phrase
No substantial miscarriage in the conduct of the election.
may not have been entirely apt; but we think that we have now found words which are more appropriate than those originally used in the Ballot Act, 1872, and which do express the meaning which ought to be embodied in the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 28, line 40, leave out from "that," to end of line 42, and insert:
the election was so conducted as to be substantially in accordance with the law as to elections and that the act or omission did not affect its result."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 28.—(Effect of register, etc.)

Amendment made: In page 29, line 28, leave out from "ground" to "otherwise" in line 29, and insert:
of his being or having on the qualifying date or the date of his appointment, as the case may be, been not a British subject or not of full age or."—[Mr. Younger.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 29 and 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 31.—(Limit of, and return and declarations as to, expenses.)

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 30, line 38, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the said amounts may be varied from time to time by regulation in such manner as may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary having regard to the difference between the level of costs affecting election expenses in the year nineteen hundred and forty-four and in the year in which such regulations are made.
As drafted, Clause 31 carries out the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference with regard to election expenses. We are glad to note that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman has carried out one of those recommendations.

Mr. Ede: Even now we cannot satisfy the Opposition.

Mr. Grimston: Well, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will. There is this consideration. Printing and other expenses have risen considerably since 1944; I would emphasise that there is now a 50 per cent. Purchase Tax on many forms of printing. The right hon. Gentleman might like to carry out the spirit as well as the letter of the Speaker's Conference. If he adopted this suggestion to vary the scales by regulation, according to the value of money and goods at any time, he would be carrying out the spirit of the recommendations. If the Clause is left as it is the actual values which were recommended by the Conference would be greatly reduced. For those reasons, I would ask him to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I am gratified to know that the Speaker's Conference is not entirely sacrosanct, and that its recommendations can be varied—and without a previous


conference to arrange it. I think that this would be a very injudicious way of dealing with the matter contained in this Clause. I admit that £450 plus the sums that were mentioned in the Speaker's Conference, which we have embodied in the Bill, represent something very different now from what they did in 1944. But I would not think, either that it was unnecessary to put into the Bill some definite sum, or that the maximum expenditure for elections should be left to successive Secretaries of State to consider, and possibly just before an election to bring in regulations which require affirmative Resolution of the House. That would not be a satisfactory way of dealing with the issue. The figure should be embodied in the Bill.
It would probably be a good thing if, between now and Report, consultations took place to ascertain the appropriate figure to insert which would carry out, as near as may be at the present time, what the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference in 1944 actually meant in capacity to deal with the necessary expenses of an election, so that approximately the same amount of material and labour should be available to the candidate as would have been the case had money not altered in value since 1944. I have no doubt that it would be possible for people knowledgeable in these matters to meet, and for consultations to take place with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself as a result, with a view to seeing if we can arrive at a figure, which could be recommended to the House on Report, to insert in lieu of the figure of £450. I should not be inclined myself to vary the other two figures, but if as a result of such consultations which I have suggested, variations were also put forward from there, it would be quite possible for the House to consider them.
It would be very unsatisfactory to insert an Amendment of this kind in the Bill. I anticipated that there would be suggestions for a variation of the figure of £450, and I ought to say that the Government would not contemplate inserting a higher figure than could be justified in relation to the £450 of 1944. As an old election agent, I have often thought that a great deal of unnecessary money is spent at elections by all parties. My own view is that

an election can be fought so cheaply that it is lost because the candidate is not given a good enough show, and that there is a point above that where there is the maximum return for every penny spent. Certainly, between 1918 and the present time, it has been possible to spend an amount above which a candidate cannot expect to get any return. Therefore, we should not contemplate going back to anything representing the old standard. An effort should be made to ascertain, in terms of present values, what is the proper figure to insert as compared with the £450 suggested at the Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Grimston: I wish to say at once that we concur in that view. We have no wish to depart from the value which the Speaker's Conference laid down. The suggestion of the Home Secretary is very much better than that contained in our Amendment—I give him that straight away. He has behaved in quite an exemplary manner and has done all that we would wish. We are carrying out the principle of the Speaker's Conference if we have consultations between all parties to get agreement on this matter. I am very pleased that the Home Secretary appears now to be coming round to our point of view, and I hope that he will continue to do so in other directions.

Mr. Ede: I think that one thing I said has been misconstrued. I suggested that consultation between the knowledgeable people should take place as quickly as possible, and that when they had reached their conclusions they should come along with an agreed recommendation to the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. I pointed out that I did not want to be involved as head of a Government Department with a heavy responsibility of impartiality in this matter, in what might be party arrangements in the early stages of these consultations.

Mr. Paton: My right hon. Friend has met the Opposition in an extremely conciliatory way, but it is necessary to utter a cautionary word from this side. I have no objections to discussions taking place to see whether there is a case for increasing the amount laid down, but I should be very much against any suggestion to increase considerably the amount of money which may be expended. If we are to take into account the rise in prices since the time of the Speaker's Conference in determining the permitted amount, we


might easily find a permitted expenditure of about £1,000 in the borough constituencies at the next elections. Such an amount would be altogether too generous. I hope that my right hon. Friend will keep any extensions within extremely narrow limits.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) in regard to keeping the limit low. I agree also with the right hon. Gentleman's remark that it is sometimes possible to spend too much at elections. It evokes a very responsible echo in my heart, and I recollected that at the General Election my opponent's expenses were nearly £400 more than my own. The Home Secretary has made a helpful suggestion, but I should like to know what are the intentions in the future if the present rise in prices continues. It is surely undesirable that we should have a series of amending Acts. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that three and a half years have seen a great rise in prices which has necessitated a change in the figure recommended. Surely, it is not inconceivable that a similar or even greater rise may take place in the next three or four years. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would say how he proposes to deal with that. The Amendment deals with that point, but while the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion gets over certain difficulties inherent in it, it does not deal with the problem of what will happen in the future.

Mr. Ede: I do not think that I have said anything outside the spirit of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton). I want to see election expenses kept as low as possible. With regard to what the hon. Member for Kingson-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has said, I consider that the figure should be laid down in the Bill. If it is necessary to vary it, it might be desirable to vary it downwards. If we take a figure, with Purchase Tax at 5o per cent. on some of the items involved, it might be desirable, in the event of an alteration in the Purchase Tax, to consider a reduction. That is a matter which should be the subject of a Bill. I am sorry on this occasion to steal the thunder of the Opposition and declare against a regulation in favour of a Bill, but a matter of this con-

stitutional importance ought to be dealt with by a Bill. I hope that the Committee will concur in that view. Some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) and of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames are an indication of how desirable it is that the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself should not be brought into these discussions at too early a stage so that we shall be able to give unprejudiced consideration to whatever suggestions are put forward and make a reasonable and impartial recommendation to the House on Report.

Mr. Grimston: There is a great deal to be said for the maximum figure being put in the Bill. We do not wish to put the expenses any higher than is necessary, and certainly no higher in terms of value, than was contemplated by the Speaker's Conference. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 33.—(Candidate's right to use certain schools and halls for election meetings.)

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move in page 33, line 12, at the end, to insert:
provided that the cost of any such damage shall not be included in a candidate's election expenses.
The purpose of this Amendment is to guard against the possibility of unprincipled and evilly disposed persons causing damage to premises where meetings are being held with a view to upsetting the election campaign of a candidate. It is not too farfetched to imagine the possibility, whether by express purpose, or merely as a result of some disturbance that arose in the course of an election campaign, of premises being seriously damaged. I think that the repair of the premises ought not to be included in the election expenses of the candidate unless it can be plainly shown that the damage was due to the action of the candidate himself.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: This appears to be a very reasonable Amendment, and I feel sure that the Home Secretary will realise that if he does not agree in principle with it, it may put the can-


didate in very grave difficulties indeed. I think that, without going into details, the Home Secretary will see the point of the Amendment, and I trust that he will agree to it.

Mr. Ede: I am advised that the Amendment is unnecessary. I understand that it is doubtful in law whether damage that is done at a meeting is an expense of the election. It is quite clear that if one could go back to the era of Eatanswill one might have one's opponents turning up at one's meeting and smashing up the furniture in the hope that they might build up a sufficient bill to exceed the whole of the permitted election expenses. I will not be dogmatic on the point of law, but I have given the Committee such advice as I have had, that it would appear not to be necessary for damage of this kind to be included in the election expenses. I will, however, examine the point of law with some care before the Report Stage, and if there should appear to be any doubt on the matter I will insert words to remove the doubt.

Mr. Macpherson: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and, in view of his kindness, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 35.—(Election propaganda.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: There is one point on Subsection (2) of the Clause to which I should like to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention. That is the use of poll cards to which we all agree. I think that we all agree that some sanction is necessary to make certain that this does not produce abuses. The words are fairly wide—that no person is to issue a document so closely resembling an official poll card as to be calculated to deceive. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is extremely common to print on the back of one's election address, or elsewhere, something that looks

something like a ballot paper or poll card. One puts one's own name on it in thick type, with a big cross against it, and the other man's name in small type. I have not the least doubt that this is a practice common to all parties. It may, of course, be that in certain parts of England this practice does not apply, but I do not think that there is any political difference in those parts of the world of which I have experience.
I do not suppose that it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention that the practice should become illegal in any way. I think that it is a very fair practice, and it draws the attention of people who do not read a great deal to what one would like them to do. They see the same of the other man, and, at least, they see where they are. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman wants to stop that practice. Let me assume that he does not. If he does not, I am a little nervous about the words:
… document so closely resembling an official poll card as to be calculated to deceive.
I am inclined to think that the sort of thing I have described would not fall under those words, but it seems a rather doubtful question, and one on which it is quite possible that a court may take a different view. Therefore, I suggest that between now and the Report stage, this point might be considered, and words a little narrower in meaning to those that now occur might be substituted in order to prevent a perfectly legitimate practice of this kind being thought to be illegal, and, possibly, being followed by legal proceedings.

Mr. Keenan: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us his opinion about the poll card issued normally at most elections, even local elections, and whether it is intended that it should now be excluded because of this Subsection?

Mr. Ede: The Clause does not apply to local government elections. It applies only to Parliamentary elections.

Mr. Keenan: The poll card is now used. It is important to know whether in all elections it will continue to be in use or not.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member himself mentioned local government elections.

Mr. Keenan: Yes, I did.

Mr. Ede: I am not sure whether I am interrupting the hon. Gentleman or he is interrupting me. What I want to make quite clear is that the remarks which I have to offer on this Clause are confined to Parliamentary elections. I cannot think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) ever did anything at an election which was calculated to deceive. I cannot understand why he should be nervous about the wording of the Clause. Clearly, these words have a distinct meaning. Poll cards have always been a matter of great anxiety to election agents, because if anything inaccurate manages to get on to them, it can be made the basis of an election petition, and very considerable damage to the election campaign may result. The Speaker's Conference recommended that a poll card should be issued by the returning officer.
9.0 p.m.
I think the poll card will indicate where the person is to vote, his number, on the register, and will give him particulars regarding the exercise of his vote. I have no doubt that it will give also a list of the names of the candidates, but I cannot see that an officially printed poll card is likely to print one name in very thick type or another in very small type. Personally, I have never put anything on my election address—but I have had a little space at the back showing my name and a cross beside it—that advertises the other candidate, even in small type. It has always seemed to me to be his job to advertise himself.
I do not think that even the printing of, let us say, the three names in order, with some indication of the way in which the issuer of the address hopes the voter will record his franchise, would be a reproduction of the poll card. I will, however, take care to make sure that the Clause is so worded as to make that quite clear.
What clearly would be something calculated to deceive would be to issue a card like that issued by the returning officer with some false information about the place of voting or the hours of the poll. I think that is the kind of thing which is aimed at here and I have no doubt that hon. Members have experienced the difficulty that, where a school is used as a polling place, it may have entrances in two separate streets. Let us say that it is on a corner site, and sometimes it

is known as the school in the main street and sometimes as the school in the flank street. It is desirable, of course, that only one name should be used. Hitherto, candidates sometimes have not known the description which the returning officer is giving to a particular polling station until almost at the last moment in which they could get their poll cards printed. All that will be avoided in future.
I think it is highly desirable that the returning officer should do this and that we should make it quite clear that it will be his duty; and that the kind of thing to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman alluded, of putting something on the back of the election address which indicates the way in which the voter will record his vote, ought not to be made something that brings one within any penalties as a result of a breach of this Subsection; or that nothing inaccurate is, in fact, printed with that particular matter. If a wrong indication of a polling station or something like that was included, then I think that would bring the person within any mischief that attaches to this Clause. Apart from that, I would not think that the kind of thing which the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated would be regarded as being outside the law.

Mr. Marlowe: In view of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman I do not intend to pursue this matter. I would urge upon him, however, that it does need looking at, because there are election documents which might come within this Clause. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would help us with another point in this Clause which I think is a little misleading. The first Subsection makes it an offence for anybody to broadcast from outside the country to within, except by arrangement with the B.B.C. Would the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea how he envisages this working as an operation of law? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, anybody doing that will be beyond jurisdiction. I cannot see how this Clause can have any meaning. The person broadcasting from abroad would be beyond jurisdiction, and I cannot see how the penalty could he enforced. I would therefore like the right hon. Gentleman to elaborate the point.

Mr. Keeling: In connection with Subsection (1) how does the right hon. Gentleman justify any arrangement being


made with the B.B.C. for the reception of such propaganda? How could it be right for propaganda about an election to be directed against this country from outside, even with the approval of the B.B.C.?

Mr. N. Macpherson: I am not a technician in these matters. I plead complete ignorance. I do not know whether hon. Members will accuse me of inflammation of the imagination, but it seems to me that we are still on the outskirts of wireless. We are committing ourselves here to a policy which may not be enforceable in the future. I see nothing immoral, irrespective of whether it be legal or not, in broadcasting from abroad upon definite wavelengths. It probably would be unwise, because one might create prejudice against the very cause one was trying to establish.
I am not clear whether it can be established technically from where a broadcast is coming. Is it possible to say definitely whether a broadcast upon an unknown or irregular wavelength is coming from outside the country? If we make such broadcasts illegal why should not we do the same for local broadcasting from within this country, experimental broadcasts upon odd wavelengths? I daresay there is a perfectly good technical answer to this question. Surely it is possible to broadcast upon experimental wavelengths inside the country. That is susceptible to very considerable development. Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the possibilities, which look rather farfetched at the moment.

Mr. Ede: The Clause is inserted to deal with broadcasting as a result of the 28th recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference. As recorded in Mr. Speaker's letter of 20th July, 1944, it stated:
It should be an offence for any British subject to promote or aid in promoting any broadcast affecting a Parliamentary election from wireless stations outside the United Kingdom.
The Conference felt that, having regard to the impossibility of forecasting future developments it would be difficult for them to make any regulations with regard to the regulation of broadcasting within the United Kingdom for election purposes. I think it is clear that if the kind of broadcast to which the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) alluded

took place on behalf of a particular candidate, and the broadcast took place inside the United Kingdom, it would be something which should be included in the election expense of that candidate and should only be undertaken with his consent.
Offences committed outside the jurisdiction are dealt with in Clause 67 (1) where it is laid down:
Proceedings … in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed outside the United Kingdom by a British subject may be taken before the appropriate court in the United Kingdom having jurisdiction in the place where the person charged is for the time being.
I take it that that means, "is for the time being when he is charged," quite clearly I do not think it can mean, "a court having jurisdiction in the place where he was when he committed the offence," because ex hypothesi the court has no control there.
It is desirable that this subject should be dealt with. I have no doubt that when we come to Clause 67 I shall be asked to say something further on it, and I will endeavour by the time we reach that Clause to be informed of the proper answer. Clause 35 (1) is to be made enforceable by proceedings under Clause 67 (1). This matter is admittedly difficult, and is one in which we are in the area of experiment. This is an effort to deal with the matter. The Speaker's Conference itself did not give us any very strong lead. We have endeavoured to find ways and means of dealing appropriately with the problem, and I have no doubt that as experience grows it may be necessary from time to time to reconsider the law on the matter, but I commend Clause 35 (1) to the Committee as a first experiment.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am sure the Committee is grateful to the Home Secretary for his explanation, but may I suggest that there is raised here an issue which goes a good deal wider than the observations which he has been good enough to submit to us? The right hon. Gentleman rested himself with some comfort and assurance on the Speaker's Conference. One would be glad to see him resting himself with equal confidence on other sections of that Conference.
On this issue of what one might call wireless interference with an election campaign, we are in the age of experiment.


These recommendations were made in 1944. May I suggest that we have since moved into the area of experience? Suppose, for instance, that when a general election takes place in this country a certain important, influential and numerous body of political opinion in Italy was anxious to reciprocate certain good wishes sent to them from a body of political opinion less numerous and less important in this country, and there were to be let loose upon us from Italy broadcasts advocating the candidature of certain hon Members in this House or a group of them at the general election, obviously inspired from an important foreign Power outside Italy. What sanction does the Home Secretary propose should be applied?
9.15 p.m.
May I suggest that what is really opened up by this Clause is not a domestic matter at all? Followed to its logical conclusion, this Clause opens up the whole question of the extent to which one Power should interfere with the domestic elections in another country. The Government cannot deal with this matter unless they examine it from that aspect. In 1944, when the war was drawing to a close, we envisaged an era in which Fascism would be extinguished. We have now moved into an entirely different one when there is a definite body of opinion in this House sympathetic to an ideology which we in this country are anxious to resist, which will have at its disposal the whole apparatus of the ether, the whole broadcasting apparatus. It is true that this Clause seeks to confine these activities to the B.B.C., but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can see the loophole which would exist were the example which was given to us last week-end to be followed, were any important political groups in any country to seek to make an impact upon our election at home and we were to retaliate in the same manner. I hope that the Home Secretary will bear that in mind before the Report stage, and give us a Clause which is entirely watertight against that sort of thing.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that the Home Secretary has dealt fully enough with this potentially enormously important subject. The possibilities it raises are clear in the minds of hon. Members. We are only at the beginning of a period of mass radio propaganda,

and it is important that before we part with this Clause we should be satisfied that it is adequate to deal with this enormously important subject. May I put this example forward? The Home Secretary has dealt so far with this sort of interference on the part of British subjects. I should like to know how this Clause will operate where, as is equally likely, that interference is effected by foreigners. If broadcasts are made by foreigners, deliberately designed to influence an election in this country, is it intended under this Clause to make the persons responsible for those broadcasts criminally liable if they should at some later stage put themselves within our jurisdiction? If that is so, it is a new development in our criminal law, under which foreigners are to be made answerable to British courts for crimes committed abroad. If it is not so intended, so far as foreign broadcasts are concerned this Clause is sheer bluff.
It is important to know what, if foreigners undertake these broadcasts, are to be the consequences to the persons for whose benefit or apparent benefit those broadcasts are made. Are they to have the validity of their elections affected? There again important considerations arise. It may well be said that it would be grossly unfair to a candidate who has received wholly unsolicited foreign aid to be unseated because that aid was given. That might be unfair. Equally one has to consider the enormous potentialities of that foreign aid. One has to consider that all the machinery of the whole of this Bill may be made comparatively ineffective if all the wealth and resources of a great Power are released on the ether in support of a particular party or candidate in this country. The consequences are potentially enormous but this Clause simply tinkers with the subject. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has said that when we reach Clause 67 he proposes to say something more about it, but that Clause would appear to relate only to broadcasts by British subjects, to offences committed by British subjects. That is an important, but a relatively small part of this problem.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman, not necessarily tonight, but before we part with this Bill, fully to consider all the objections that arise from this matter and to present to the House, as I suggest is


his duty, some proposals which will enable this enormously important problem to be dealt with. If he does not do so it is really making a mockery of this Bill. It is no use limiting a candidate's election expenses to a few hundred pounds if we are leaving open this enormous door of intervention from overseas. I appreciate the difficulties of the Home Secretary in dealing with what is a new problem. References to precedents in the past do not help very much, but, on the other hand, the fact that it is a new problem does not free him from the obligations fully to consider it. We are now considering the new code of election law and it would be scandalous if this Committee were to part with this matter without taking some steps to protect future elections from what is a potentially real menace.

Mr. G. Lang: I do not wish to pursue the interesting speculations which have been raised. I wish to ask if the Home Secretary can help me with a particular matter which might affect a great many of us. It is possible now for people to make a record in this country which can be broadcast from a station abroad. It is sometimes done at the Christmas season or for special appeals, and it is done in connection with religious services and for the advocacy of certain orders. I wish to know whether, if I felt it desirable to introduce a novel feature and to arrange for the broadcast of a record, which I had had made at home, say on a certain day at a certain time, so that people who could not get to my meetings could hear my voice, I should be committing an offence? It may well be that I might want my constituents to hear a broadcast somewhat different to the official broadcasts which are no doubt wisely chosen. I want to know whether, if such a record were made at home, and commercially broadcast from, say, Luxembourg, that would be an offence within this Clause.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I hope that the Home Secretary will not be led astray by the red herring of hon. Members from the benches above the Gangway. It constitutes a very dangerous doctrine that the nation should be sealed off completely—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand that as a reference, however oblique, to my

speech. May I say that I did not suggest that this nation should be sealed off? I merely suggested that it was not quite right, when considering the election law of this country, to ignore provisions to deal with what is a very real possibility. I specifically did not make recommendations.

Mr. Roberts: The whole implication of the speech of the hon. Member was that we can deal by the pressure of the English criminal law with broadcasts made by the subjects of a foreign State. I suggest that the object of this Clause is to prevent a candidate for election in a British Parliament from making use of the services of foreign broadcasting stations. What foreign subjects may do might be a matter of regulation by treaty between His Majesty's Government and the foreign Government, but it would be quite wrong to try to insert in this Bill any provision making it criminal for a foreign subject to broadcast. It might be wrong for them to broadcast at the time of an election—

Mr. Marlowe: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that we are pointing out that that is exactly what this does do?

Mr. Roberts: I think that when read in conjunction with Clause 67 the object is quite clear. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. If he says that the Bill achieves the object, then what is all the fuss about? I hope that the Home Secretary will recognise the dangerous doctrine implicit in the remarks of hon. Members.

Mr. Paton: I was surprised at the extraordinary remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe). Apparently he assumes, in considering the meaning of the passage to which reference has been made, that when we say:
No person shall …
we are, for the first time in my experience, interpreting that as:
No person in foreign countries shall …
Obviously the first phrase has no meaning except to persons within British jurisdiction. I was astounded to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman put a point of that kind. I agree with the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) that a great deal of what we have heard has been complete nonsense and of no relevance to this Clause. In a Clause in a Bill of this kind we cannot deal with


relations between Governments. We could not deal with a broadcast from Russia in a Clause like this. If it could be dealt with at all, it would be by entirely different methods not relevant to a Representation of the People Bill. Here we are dealing with something which is a real and serious danger. We might get wealthy individuals or groups of individuals in this country who would buy time for broadcasts from the Continent and use that time to "push the barrow" of a certain candidate or party. That is feasible. The purpose of the suggestion from the Speaker's Conference, to which this Clause tries to give effect, was to prevent that kind of thing. I do not know whether this provision will be effective, but I agree that we should attempt to make it. If the Clause can be improved, we should welcome it.

Mr. Keeling: The Home Secretary claimed to be carrying out a recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, but he has departed in a serious manner from that recommendation. The Conference said:
It should be an offence for. any British subject to promote or to aid in promoting any broadcast affecting Parliamentary elections from wireless stations outside the United Kingdom.
That recommendation was absolute: there should be no broadcasting from outside the United Kingdom in a Parliamentary election. That was a perfectly proper recommendation. Again I ask why the Home Secretary has provided for an exception to this rule to be made by an arrangement with the B.B.C. Suppose that at the next election the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills), having failed to capture the Labour Party, should capture the B.B.C.—a by no means possible contingency—and should then proceed to arrange with them to broadcast to the people of this country a message from Senor Nenni advocating his candidature in the election here, that would be most improper. Why does the Home Secretary propose to make any exception to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference in favour of broadcasts approved by the B.B.C.?

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: It seems to me that the hon. Member on the Benches opposite has failed to understand the clear meaning of this Clause, which does raise a most important matter.

It says that no person shall broadcast outside the United Kingdom. That includes everybody, not only a British subject; it includes an Italian. It means, in other words, exactly what it says. The first thing we want to know is, what is to be done about these broadcasts? It is perfectly true that the people may remain outside the United Kingdom; on the other hand, they may not. Is it intended to proceed against an Italian subject who broadcasts during a British election if and when that Italian subject comes within the United Kingdom and therefore within British jurisdiction?
The second point is that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Let us suppose that this law which we are now trying to enact was, in fact, the law of Italy at the present time. What would be the position of Signor Nenni in his election? Would it be voided on the ground that he had solicited assistance over the British Broadcasting Corporation, which, in fact, took place, in advocating his candidature in the Italian election? Let us take the even clearer and much more important case of Signor Saragat and Signor Lombardi, Who got the support not of a small group of the party, but of the official Labour Party in this country. If this law which we are now initiating was the law of Italy, I imagine that the elections not only of the Nenni Group, but of the whole of the Italian Socialist Party, would have been voided. Is it intended that that should be the position in this country with a similar sort of broadcast by a member of an Italian party?
I ask the Home Secretary not to make up his mind finally upon this matter, which is far wider than seems to be appreciated by the right hon. Gentleman up to now, and, certainly, by the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton). It should be looked at very carefully, and the Government might also look at their own conduct in the cases of elections in other countries than our own.

Mr. Ede: It is hard enough for a layman to deal with the intricacies of English law, and I am not going to accept the invitation of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) to deal with hypothetical cases that might arise if the law of Italy were something other than it is. After that patronising speech which he made to me just now, I am not going


to be such a mug as to do that. If a person commits an offence outside the jurisdiction of British law and then comes within its jurisdiction, it will be the duty of the Government of the time to decide what, in all the circumstances of the case, they will do, but I do not regard—

Mr. Thorneycroft: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me? Despite the "patronising speech" to which he has just referred, may I ask him to remember that it is not a question of the Government of the day, but a question whether, in fact, the man who places himself within our jurisdiction should himself be liable to conviction before the courts. It is not the Government, but the man himself.

Mr. Ede: I would have said myself, subject to any advice that I can get from my right hon. and learned Friends—

Mr. Thorneycroft: That will not be much.

Mr. Ede: It will be better than any I get from the hon. Member. I would have thought that, if he had committed the offence and came within the jurisdiction, he would be liable to prosecution, but it would depend upon the responsible people of the day whether the prosecution was made or not. They would have to have regard to all the circumstances of the case. I do not myself—

Mr. Marlowe: Mr. Marlowe rose—

Mr. Ede: No, I am not going to give way. I generally give way, and on occasions recently I have observed that that habit of mine has been unduly played on by some hon. and learned Members opposite. I would prefer to take one lawyer on at a time. I do not regard the electorate of this country as being so foolish as to be other than able to assess at its proper value any broadcast which is made to it by a foreign station at the behest of a foreign power, and I have no doubt that in other countries other peoples assess the value of broadcasts to them from foreign countries in the way which they think best suited to their own national interests. I believe if any political party in this country relied on a broadcast from a foreign power, it would probably do itself more harm than good.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Lang), if

he did what he suggested he would undoubtedly be committing an offence. If he wants to get his speeches broadcast from a record, he must do it from inside this country. With regard to the point of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), the exception is made in the case of arrangements made with the British Broadcasting Corporation because there might be abroad at the time of an election a leader of British political opinion whose party might desire to include him in their team in the arrangement of political broadcasts. He might be a member of the Government or a member of one of the opposition parties. A member of the Government might have to go abroad on duty during a general election and it might be desirable to include a broadcast from him in the series of broadcasts which the Government were putting out. Similarly, a leading member of an opposition party might be abroad, recuperating from an illness or for other reasons which are quite reasonable, and it might be desired to include him. That was the point of including the phrase:
arrangements made with the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Keeling: Might I interrupt with one sentence about that?

Mr. Ede: Well, the hon. Member is not a lawyer.

Mr. Keeling: Would it not be a good thing to add that these permitted broadcasts from abroad should be by a British subject? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consider that before Report stage.

Mr. Ede: I will consider that although, of course, British subjects include a great many people who are not politicians or statesmen in this country. With regard to the use of the air by foreign broadcasting stations, to use foreign speakers and foreign ideas, that is not a matter for a Bill of this kind. Quite clearly, we cannot pass a Bill here and make effective a statement that no broadcast shall be made to this country in the course of a general election from the United, States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or from Italy or any other country. This is directed at individuals.
I was asked by other hon. Members opposite to deal with propaganda by foreign Governments. That, obviously, is a matter for the Foreign Office and for


diplomatic representations, and, I imagine, it would have to be done on some basis of give and take. This is the first effort to deal with the problem—the hon. Member for Monmouth is interrupting again.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I coughed.

Mr. Ede: The cough followed something else. This is the first effort to deal with this subject. I am grateful to hon. Members for pointing out the difficulties of the case, and I can assure them that I shall pay strict attention to every criticism that has been made of this Clause. We have to face the fact that, as the aeroplane has abolished the protection that we had from the English Channel, so the conquest of the ether by Signor Marconi and those who have followed him has presented us with a set of new difficulties with regard to the infiltration of ideas. Generally speaking, I am in favour of as many ideas as possible infiltrating into this country, as long as we know whence they come and are able to discern the objects with which they are being put forward. This power does, however, require consideration. I do not think, in spite of what the hon. Member for Twickenham said, that we have departed seriously from what was suggested by the Speaker's Conference. I hope that between now and later stages of the Bill we may be able to improve the first Subsection of the Clause, and I hope the Committee will now feel that we can have the Clause.

Mr. Marlowe: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not give way to me. I wanted only to point out an additional difficulty, and I think that, as I initiated the discussion by drawing attention to this Clause, he might have done me the courtesy of hearing me. I was concerned only with the purely legal aspects and difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman is going to meet. He has rightly shown that the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton) is quite wrong in his interpretation.

Mr. Paton: No.

Mr. Marlowe: A person under this Clause can be of any nationality. I also accept that the right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the Clause itself does not create an offence by a foreign Power. It would, however, create an offence by the individual who actually did the broadcast on behalf of the foreign Power. Then it follows that the legal

position would be that if that individual, whether what he did was done on behalf of the foreign Power or his own behalf, came to this country—according, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, to Clause 67—he could be proceeded against at the place where he was for the time being. The right hon. Gentleman sought to dispose of that by saying it would be for the Government of the day to decide. I presume he meant, decide whether action should be taken against the individual or not.
He must remember that prosecutions are not initiated by Government Departments. Nor are they always initiated either by the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. We have in this country a system of private prosecutions, and there is nothing to prevent any individual, if the offending foreigner came to this country, from laying information against him where he was for the time being, under Clause 67. This is a difficulty—one of the many difficulties with which the right hon. Gentleman is faced. I fully appreciate he is exploring an entirely new field, and that it does present difficulties, but I hope that he will bear them in mind when the Bill reaches another stage.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 37.—(Extension to certain elections in England and Wales of limit on expenses.)

9.45 P.m.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 37, line 18, at the end, to insert:
(3) In relation to elections of a chairman of a district council or parish council or meeting in England or Wales, Part IV of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 and the local corrupt practices Act shall, subject to such adaptations, alterations and exceptions as may be made by district or parish election rules under the Local Government Act, 1933, apply in like manner as in the case of elections under that Act of the mayor of a borough.
Perhaps we could discuss at the same time the next Amendment—in line 21, at the end to add:
of councillors, and in relation to any election so held of the chairman of a council.
The object of these Amendments is to put right an anomaly in the existing law under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882. The provisions of that Act, as they


relate to elections and the provisions of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884, apply to the election of mayors and the chairmen of county councils, but not to the election of chairmen of district and parish councils. The Amendment in line 18 corrects that anomaly, and the Amendment in line 21 is consequential upon it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 37, line 21, at end, add:
of councillors, and in relation to any election so held of the chairman of a council."—[Mr. Younger.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 40.—(Prohibition of expenses not authorised by election agent.)

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 38, line 34, after "candidate," to insert "or."
Perhaps we might also discuss the following Amendment—in line 34, leave out "and persons" and insert "unless the said expenses are."
As the Clause stands it appears that the election agent can authorise a sub-agent to incur expenses, apparently with no limit. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the candidate or his agent shall authorise the expenses which can be incurred by a sub-agent. At present the Clause would give the sub-agent virtually a blank cheque as to the amount of expenses that he can incur, provided he has authorisation from the agent or the candidate. We think that this should be restricted, that he should only be authorised to incur certain expenses and not have this blank cheque. I hope that I have put the point clearly and briefly. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could let us have his views upon it.

Mr. Ede: Section 34 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, which is now the law of the land, provides:
A person other than the election agent of a candidate shall not incur any expenses on account of holding public meetings or issuing advertisements, circulars or publications for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of any candidate at a Parliamentary election unless he is authorised in writing to do so by the election agent.
The words to which I draw attention are those imposing the limitation to

holding public meetings or issuing advertisements, circulars or publications. …
The Speaker's Conference, in Item 3 of the final Report, recommended that this Section should be amended so as to cover any expenses incurred by a political or other organisation or by an individual, for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate or candidates. The Can Committee considered this recommendation and suggested, in Paragraph 21 of their Interim Report, that effect could be given to this simply by deleting the words to which I drew special attention. However, when it came to drafting Clause 40 it at once became apparent that merely to delete those words would make the prohibition altogether too wide, and would have the result which the Speaker's Conference and the Carr Committee can hardly have contemplated.
The effect, for example, would apparently be that an elector would be required to obtain the authority of an election agent before spending 2d. on his bus fares to go to the polling station to vote for a candidate. It would certainly require anyone who wished to do some canvassing, or otherwise help the promotion of his candidate, to obtain the agent's authority before incurring the most trivial personal expenses on bus fares and so on. Accordingly, it appears to us that the best way to give effect to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference is to extend Section 34 to cover expenses for other purposes in addition to those specified in the Section and therefore Clause 40 repeats the wording of Section 34 of the 1918 Act, but has reference to other matters. In this way, it virtually covers any form of election propaganda, and it appears to give full effect to the Speaker's Conference recommendation. We feel it is desirable that we should carry out in spirit the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference and the Carr Committee, but that we should not impose some of the absurd limitations which a rigid application of the recommendations would entail.

Mr. Grimson: I am obliged to the Home Secretary for his explanation, which seems to us to be reasonable; we did not grasp all the implications he has mentioned. In view of his explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move, in page 38, line 35, to leave out from "agent," to the end of line 42.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discussed the Amendment in line 43, to leave out "paragraph (c) of."

Mr. Reid: These Amendments cover practically the same point. I rise in order to get a little further clarification. I am not yet quite clear why these words should not be left out. It seems that these words are simply a challenge to the ingenuity of election agents to find some way of getting on with what they think is their job without infringing these words. What would obviously be the cleanest way of doing it would be to say that no expenses shall be incurred without the authorisation of the candidate, his election agent, or persons authorised provided that personal expenses up to £1 are exempt. In other words, we should be defining the exemption and not the kind of things that are counted as election expenses. It may be that Subsection (1, c)—
otherwise presenting to the electors the candidate or his views or the extent or nature of his backing or disparaging another candidate"—
covers all the normal activities of candidates and their election agents. That may be the right hon. Gentleman's experience, but I am not sure that this is the right way to do it. I should like to know why it is thought necessary to put in these three headings, and not to leave it general, with the exemption the right hon. Gentleman has clearly demonstrated is necessary, which might have to be slightly wider. I suggest that this method of approach might lead to greater clarity.

The Attorney-General: The Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman certainly has attractions. It is simple, and anything which tends to simplify legislation is an attraction. We came to the conclusion that it was too simple. Sometimes undue simplicity in legislation leads to complications in administration. We gave very careful consideration to the proposal made by the Carr Committee for implementing the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. The deletion of the prohibited categories, as it appears to us, would have left the prohibition much too wide, and

it might have prohibited all kinds of expenditure—some of it of not entirely small amounts—which were certainly not contemplated by the Speaker's Conference or the Carr Committee as coming within the evil that had to be guarded against.
All sorts of examples could be given—a voter who spends 2d. on a bus fare in order to go to the polling station; a man who sends a telegram to his wife urging her to vote or not to vote for a particular candidate; enthusiasts who want to help in voluntary canvassing, incurring expenses in connection with meals or travelling expenses; the man who wants to take legal advice whether the local candidate was eligible to stand or not and who may have to spend a lot of money in order to discover whether he is subject to one or other of these disqualifications. We thought that the best way to implement the recommendations was to add these further categories to those already enumerated under Section 34 of the original Act, as my right hon. Friend indicated. What we are really doing is to retain all the existing prohibitions, and to add a form of words which broadly covers anything which one normally understands to be election propaganda. We thought that that was the best course to take, although the Amendment is not without its attractions.

Mr. Reid: I cannot say that I am wholly satisfied, but, on the other hand, this is a matter of form rather than substance, and, therefore, I do not think it is necessary to pursue the matter further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 38, line 44, to leave out sub-paragraph (i).
The effect of this proviso is not quite clear to us. I think that the best way I can illustrate it is by giving an example. Is it intended that, say, a letter appearing in the Press, signed by a number of people in support of a candidature, should be reckoned as within the candidate's expenses or not? We may have a tied Press for either political party, and a great deal of electioneering can be done through that means, without any expenses having to appear in the candidate's election return. The reason we have moved the Amendment is to get some explanation from the Home Secretary of what is


intended by the proviso for it is quite clear that abuse can occur in this connection.

10.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The prohibition in paragraph (c) is, of course, very wide. Strictly interpreted, it would cover expenses incurred by a newspaper proprietor in sending reporters to attend a political meeting and, later on, in reporting that meeting; or the expenses which he might incur in writing an editorial about the election and recommending voters to vote one way or another. Strictly speaking, I think it might possibly cover expenses incurred in printing a letter sent to a newspaper in support of a particular candidature. We have taken the view that it is not desirable to prohibit expenditure of that kind. Indeed, we think it would be quite impracticable to do so, and that is the purpose of sub-paragraph (1) of the proviso.
We do, however, hit at advertisements. Expenditure incurred in putting advertisements in the Press will be covered; that would be right as an expenditure which must be authorised by the election agent. That fairly comes within the Clause. What we seek to avoid hitting at is something which is published in the ordinary course of journalism—of reporting public events, of writing leading articles, or a letter to the Press. I agree it may be very difficult to draw the line between a letter to a newspaper and an advertisement, but these matters must be left to the conscience of the tribunals which have to deal with this problem. We think it would be quite wrong to impose any prohibition on the ordinary writing of letters by individuals to the Press. If what is written, however, is not a letter, but is an advertisement and is paid for, then, of course, it comes under the other part of the Subsection. In those circumstances we do not think it would be right to accept the deletion of the proviso and we think that it would be very rash to interfere in that way with the freedom of the Press.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I would like to know whether a case such as the example which I will now give would be covered. It sometimes happens that special newspapers come into being for the purpose of an election; they are run by a group or

party in support of a particular candidate. Is it quite clear that they would be covered by paragraph (b) in Subsection (1)?

The Attorney-General: I think that that example would fairly come under paragraph (b). A special election newspaper, such as one sometimes has, or an advertisement in an ordinary newspaper, would clearly come under this paragraph.

Sir Ian Fraser: Can the Attorney-General explain what he means by the obscure sentence that there may be some difficulty—I think this is what he said—in distinguishing between a letter to a newspaper and an advertisement? Surely, there could not be two more different methods of approach though, admittedly, the effect of the two printings may be the same? The one is current practice and is not paid for, and the other is paid for.

The Attorney-General: That is, of course, an explanation—that the advertisement is paid for and the letter is not. It may be that the matter contained in the letter is exactly the same as that contained in the advertisement. What I meant, when I said there was difficulty in distinguishing between the two, was that the effect and the object of the two publications may be absolutely identical. One is sent to a favourable newspaper in the form of a letter, which that newspaper publishes without cost to the writer; the other is sent to an unfavourable newspaper in the form of an advertisement which has to be paid for. The substance of the publications is exactly the same. The only distinction is that one is paid for and one is not.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: There is undoubtedly this difficulty about advertisements because, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, a favourable newspaper may publish precisely the same announcement without charging for it and, indeed, in the form of an advertisement. Are we to take it that this means that if a newspaper chooses to publish anything emanating from a candidate it can incur as much expense as it likes if it does not charge the candidate. If it charges the candidate the expenditure becomes election expenses? That seems a little odd.
My real purpose is to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain a little


further about the other periodicals. He indicated that a newspaper of which there was only one issue was not really a newspaper at all, and I agree with that. On the other hand, there have been from time to time, and still are, newsletters and publications of that kind which may not be very permanent but do go on from number to number. If ever the day comes when the supply of paper is restricted, it will be easy to expand one of these papers out of all knowledge, and then, apparently it will come under the proviso. It may be that although the auomalises which arise out of the exemptions for newspapers are inescapable, I do not profess to see an easy or a good way to deal with them. I doubt very much whether the same can be said about the other periodicals which are not newspapers.
It might be well to look again at the matter and to see whether some distinction can be drawn between the ephemeral publications, very often typewritten or at any rate not written but reproduced in some way, and established periodicals which may be in the same position as newspapers. I do not know whether there is any technical method of distinguishing between an established, printed periodical and an ephemeral one like a reproduced newsheet or newsletter. If there is, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the matter again in order to exclude the mushroom kind of publication.

The Attorney-General: I certainly follow the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We will look at the Clause again. It may be difficult to find a more precise form of words than the one which we have adopted. We are seeking to protect, and we think we are successful, the periodical which is a regular publication, and not the one which comes out ad hoc for the purposes of an election. We are doing that by using the word "periodical" to indicate something which appears at periodic intervals, regularly, and not something which appears just before the election and will not go on. What I say cannot bind the tribunal, but if the paper comes into being at the time of an election it would probably be looked upon as not being a periodical within the meaning of the Clause. I will look at the matter again.

Mr. Nicholson: I am associated with a monthly periodical appropriately called

"Commonsense." It comes out every month and has in it an article by a Member of Parliament. It is not an ephemeral publication for the purposes of an election but it might go on being published during an election. Would it be covered by the Clause?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman's question shows the desirability of looking at the Clause with a little more care.

Mr. Tiffany: Suppose that during an election a particular periodical were suddenly increased in size. Would the expense involved rank as an election expense or would it be an expense in the ordinary way?

The Attorney-General: I hope my hon. Friend will not submit me to a long cross-examination upon these matters. I should say that if it was a regular periodical, the fact that it was increased in size at the time of an election would not make any difference. It does happens that newspapers and periodicals sometimes increase in size at election times. These things balance themselves out, and it would be very difficult to provide that some part of the extra cost of the increase in size should be acknowledged as an election expense. I do not think it would be practicable or even desirable.

Mr. Grimston: We have had a useful discussion on this proviso, and several points have been brought out. In view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has promised to look at the wording to see if it can be amended and improved, and we have achieved our object, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 38, line 44, after "matter," to insert:
by way of fair comment or report.
There are two points relating to this Amendment, the effect of which would make the proviso read as follows:
Provided that paragraph (c) of this subsection shall not
(i) restrict the publication of any matter by way of fair comment or report relating to the election in a newspaper or other periodical.
The first point has, already been covered. I was surprised to hear from the learned


Attorney-General that, in his view, under the Clause as it now stands it would not be possible to publish an advertisement free, gratis and for nothing. The first object of this Amendment is to prevent that state of affairs, so that the matter could only then be published by way of fair comment or report.
As to the second object, it is thought that as the proviso stands it might be held to exempt the Press from the usual common law rules as to libel, and, therefore, it is felt that it would be better to make that quite clear and explicit by adding the words "by way of fair comment or report."

The Attorney-General: That is a very interesting suggestion, if I may say so, but I do not think it is one which it would be practicable to embody by means of the proposed Amendment in this Bill. The clear intention, and as I believe the clear effect, of this Clause as drafted is to prohibit expenditure on what one might broadly call political advertising without the authority of the election agent. All that it is intended to exempt by means of paragraph (i) of the proviso is what is published in the ordinary course of journalism by way of reporting, by way of announcing coming events and by way of comment in editorial columns. It is certainly not intended—and I do not think that the Clause could possibly be interpreted in the sense contemplated by the hon. Gentleman—that the Clause would legalise the publication of any matter which under the existing law would be defamatory or actionable.
On the other hand, the introduction of the words proposed in the Amendment, "by way of fair comment and report," would give rise to very great difficulties in the interpretation, operation and administration of this Statute. It may, of course, be said—and, indeed, it has been said by hon. Members opposite—that some newspapers at election times, and perhaps not only at election times, do conduct their news reporting and their editorial service in such a way as to make them virtually a disguised advertisement for particular political parties.
10.15 p.m.
It may be said that newspapers often go far beyond what ought properly to be regarded as fair comment, but while one must detest any attempt at tendentious

reporting and deplore any comments which would be unfair, it would be quite wrong in a statute such as this, dealing with matters of this kind, to prohibit them or to alter the existing legal consequences which may result. If matters are reported in a newspaper which are defamatory, not fair comment, which are actionable, it will still be possible for an action to be brought in regard to them. If matter is published which is tendentious but not actionable we must rely on other methods of publicity to combat it. It would be impossible to impose upon editors the obligation of deciding whether their comment was fair, and when it was unfair, of going to an election agent before they published it. That would be the effect of the Amendment. While making it clear that the Clause as drafted will not in any way affect the rights of action for libel, we think that the form of words which we have chosen is the appropriate one in the circumstances.

Mr. Macpherson: In view of the clear indication given by the Attorney-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 39, line r, to leave out sub-paragraph (ii).
We should like to have explained to us the second part of the proviso. The broad rule is that all expenses, by whomsover incurred, have to be authorised by the candidate, the election agent or someone authorised by the election agent. That applies to all expenses incurred in presenting to the electors the candidate or his views or "disparaging another candidate" but there is an exception to that which is contained in sub-paragraph (ii) which says that this shall not
apply to any expenses not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of ten shillings which may be incurred by an individual and are not incurred in pursuance of a plan suggested by or concerted with others.
It is not clear to us whether this sum of 10s. which applies to any individual covers the period of a single election. I take it that any individual can only spend his 10s. once during a particular election.
In the second place it is not clear to us why the sum of 10s. is selected. In regard to that, I observe that the Home Secretary has an Amendment on the Order Paper which is the next to be called,


which will exclude from the 10s. limit expenses incurred
in travelling or in living away from home or similar personal expenses.
That is to say there is an addition proposed to this proviso in regard to travelling expenses and in regard to a person living away from home. That, I take it, is to cover the case of the visiting speaker who stays in a hotel and perhaps has to hire a motor car in order to attend the meetings.
I should like to know what class of expenditure is envisaged in this curious provision that any number of electors can spend up to 10s. each on putting forward the case of one candidate or disparaging the case of another, provided always that they do not act
in pursuance of a plan suggested by or concerted with others.
That seems to me to open the door to a good deal of rather loose petty expenditure in promoting the case of particular candidates. I should have thought that it would have been sufficient to adopt the suggestion contained in the following Amendment by the Home Secretary, to allow expenses to be incurred in the case of persons who have to travel or stay away from home in connection with an election. I do not see what is the purpose of allowing Tom, Dick and Harry to spend 10s. in propagating the case of a particular candidate.

The Attorney-General: We wish to catch all forms of expenses which can be regarded as election expenses, but we do not want to be too rigid about it. Subparagraph (c), without this proviso, would catch expenses of the most trivial and personal kind such as, for instance, buying a party favour, or sending a telegram to one's aunt in Southwark advising her to vote for a particular candidate. That kind of trivial, personal expenditure, it seems to us, if it is personal expenditure and not organised expenditure, ought to be exempted.
On the other hand, if some ingenious election agent organises a scheme whereby everybody living outside Southwark and having an aunt in Southwark sent such a telegram before the date of the election that would be a different matter. That would be:
incurred in pursuance of a plan suggested by or concerted with others.

which are the words used. We do not think it right to impose a prohibition on a man who wishes to send an innocent message to his aunt, or goes to the expense of buying a meal, because he is in the constituency on the day of the election and has to get a meal there, instead of having it at home. That kind of expenditure is what we should like to exempt, and the object of these two paragraphs in the proviso is to prevent the Clause applying to matters to which, I think hon. Members opposite will agree, it would be manifestly unreasonable to apply a prohibition of this kind.

Sir I. Fraser: The mention of favours leads me to ask a question. I confess to not being certain of the practice, but my recollection is that in the six or seven elections which I have fought both on our side, and on the other side, it was the practice to have favours in the committee room which helpers came in and bought. Great care was always taken by the candidates not to give them away. I think that was the practice, and that it is fairly universal. That is, of course, organised by the election agent or by some partisan or helper. I wonder whether the Attorney-General intends such activities shall be a charge on the election account?

The Attorney-General: Yes, that would be organised expenditure and would come within the words which we have expressly used:
incurred in pursuance of a plan suggested by or concerted with others.
That kind of provision of favours on an organised scale would be covered, and would be a perfectly proper election expense. It may be a useful thing to do, all parties appear to do it. They choose some colours and have favours made up, and sell them at a profit. It is a perfectly proper form of election expenditure.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I do not see the argument of the Attorney-General. He says, quite rightly, that he wishes to excuse trivial personal expenditure, such as sending a telegram to one's aunt in Southwark. I suppose that would include hiring a motor car to go and vote or to canvass somebody. Why does he then say that if it exceeds 10s. it becomes unreasonable? I may have 15 aunts living in Southwark who might each merit a telegram. I may have to motor 5o miles to vote. The drafting gives me the impression that the


draftsmen were not quite sure about the case, so they thought they would make it safe by limiting it to 10s. The amount of 10s. renders the whole thing rather ridiculous.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: As in a previous matter which we discussed, the Attorney-General has made clear the intentions of the Government, but again it is open to criticism whether the words as drafted will achieve the object. It has become fashionable of late for certain foolish youths to disport themselves on Sunday evenings in the vicinity of Dalston. Those are the sort of people who turn up at election meetings. It is surprising how effectively ten determined men can break up a meeting if they really set to work. I submit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it would be possible with this wording for any candidate or his agent to get hold of ten youths and to pay them a shilling each to go and make a noise at an opposition meeting. Ten people can have a most deleterious effect on a political meeting. I wonder whether the intention would not be more clear if we inserted the word "personal" so that the line would read:
… apply to any personal expenses not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of ten shillings. …
That might get round the difficulty. The Attorney-General must have heard of the actions of these gangs. It would be difficult to establish the fact that they were acting in pursuance of a plan. When ten people are scattered over a public meeting it is difficult to prove that they are acting in pursuance of any sort of plan even though they may be doing so. This would be in the worst interests of those who wish to see elections properly conducted. If this was made to apply to personal expenses rather than to expenses in general, it might cover the point.

The Attorney-General: I will give consideration to that suggestion. We on this side of the Committee are not so familiar as the hon. and gallant Member with that kind of election method. I would point out that if it was impossible to establish that the 10 or 12 members of the political party to which the hon. and gallant Member referred were acting in concert, equally it would be impossible to prove that expenditure had been incurred. These questions of proof will arise and cause diffi-

culty however we deal with the situation. If it can be proved that expenditure has been incurred then, also, it will be capable of proof that what had been done had been done in concert and was, therefore, covered by the words that we have used. However, I will look at the possibility of using the word "personal." It is true that the limit of 10s. mentioned by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) is an arbitrary figure. We thought it right, in order to avoid the very kind of evil mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), only to exempt fairly trivial expenditure. Once one gets to larger sums, one may be producing some kind of influence on the election. We thought that the admittedly arbitrary figure of 10s. was about the right mark.

Mr. Nicholson: If, for instance, someone comes from Scotland and travels a long distance to canvass at an election, is there any idea that the personal expenditure in travelling from Scotland would be ranked as an election expense?

The Attorney-General: That point is covered by the next Amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Peake: In view of the assurance given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 39, line 4, at the end, to insert:
or to expenses incurred by any person in travelling or in living away from home or similar personal expenses.
This. Amendment intends to provide expressly for travelling expenses in exactly the kind of case just put to me by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) and put a little earlier by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). Personal expenses of that kind—the travelling expenses of a Cabinet Minister travelling down to some distant constituency to address a meeting, an elector's own travelling expenses in order to record his vote, if not paid by the election agent—ought not to be prohibited, we think, under the provisions of the Clause. If paid by the election agent, of course, it would be different.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gallacher: I beg to move, in page 39, line 4, at the end, to insert:
Provided that nothing in this section shall render it unlawful for a political party to incur expense in the presentation to the electorate of the views of that political party in the election, where no member of that political party has been nominated as candidate in the election concerned.
I want to make clear the position of political parties that exist in a constituency who are not running their own candidate, apart altogether from participating in support of one or other of the candidates who may be standing. In the case of my own Party, it is not a very pressing matter from one point of view. For instance, I spoke at a public meeting in North Croydon during a recent by-election and we made something like £30. It could easily have been spent in posters and we would have come out without having incurred any expenses at all. But there are always political groupings or parties that may not be in a position to put up candidates of their own but still have a policy they want to place before the electorate. I would like to know if an Amendment of this kind can be accepted. I leave it at that, because I do not like this Clause and want to say two or three hard things about it on the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

The Attorney-General: I am afraid we must resist this Amendment. It would open the door wide to evasions of the whole principle of this Bill, and evasions, I venture to think, of the most grievous kind. Suppose—if one might suppose such a case—a person is standing who describes himself as an Independent Socialist but whom the party represented by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) regard as being a fellow-traveller of the Communist Party. The Communist Party, if this Amendment were accepted, could go into that constituency and spend unlimited amounts in support—

Mr. Gallacher: It is not a question of the Communist Party going into a constituency, but of the electors of that constituency who belong to a particular party who have not a candidate. Have they no right to put their point of view during the election campaign in any way they like?

The Attorney-General: Certainly, they may put their point of view, but they must not incur expenditure in regard to the matter. If they are allowed to incur expenditure which would not rank as election expenditure, clearly they could spend a large amount in influencing the course of that election and far exceeding the amounts permitted by law. Take another case. I want to be perfectly fair to the hon. Member. Suppose a National Liberal candidate were standing. In such a case, the Tories might come along and with their vast resources of money they might multiply many times the permitted election expenditure. If political parties, whatever their political complexion, want to take part in a campaign, although they put no candidate into the field, they must be intending to influence the result of that campaign in favour of one candidate and against another candidate. And if, as my hon. Friend very well put the case, the election agents of the candidates concerned are not prepared to invite, or to accept, their assistance in this way, then they must not be allowed to spend money uninvited in an endeavour to influence the course of an election. The proper course for a political party in that position, unable to put their own candidate into the field, or to get an election agent for any other candidate to authorise expenditure or to adopt their propaganda, is to keep out of the field, out of the ring; to express their views, if they wish to do so, without incurring expenditure, but otherwise to leave the election to be fought by those parties which have the courage to put forward candidates to fight it. The whole object of this Clause is to require the authority of an election agent for any expenditure intended to influence the result of an election, and to accept this Amendment would be to drive a horse and cart through that intention.

Mr. Gallacher: This Clause makes it clear that money cannot be spent in support, or disparagement, of a candidate; but the Amendment wants to make it clear that a political party can engage, as the Labour Party has done in years gone by, in elections, because when feeling is aroused, as it is during an election, it is an opportunity for a party or group, whatever that party or group may be, to put forward its point of view. Surely it is permissible for a party in a constituency to expend money in putting its point of


view without in any way interfering with other candidates—either for or against. That is the important fact. Under this Clause, it would be prohibited from putting its point of view to the constituents.

Captain Marsden: I am glad the learned Attorney-General has taken the point of view he has just stated. It is acceptable to democratic ideas that he should have done so. Any policy which might be argued by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) would be in favour of the Socialist Party—would be in favour of the learned Attorney-General's own party. It is, therefore, the more commendable that the learned Attorney-General now refutes that assistance. Whatever Communists may argue, during an election their bias is towards Socialism. Socialism and Communism travel a long way together. They are fellow travellers for a long distance.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think I must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that he also is travelling a long way from the Amendment.

Captain Marsden: I thought my compass was in the right direction, though I may be losing my grip of the wheel. As I have said, I think it is the more commendable of the learned Attorney-General to take the view he has expressed, because, if he had not done so, the natural purpose of any intervention such as that which the hon. Member for West Fife would provide during an election—by-election or general election—would have been in favour of the learned Attorney-General's party. It is ridiculous to suggest that they can take part in an election without talking against someone; or to suggest that they can talk about their own policy and purposes when their own candidates are not in the field. Whatever the hon. Member for West Fife may argue now, it is hopeless to suggest that he could get on to a platform during a general election and go on talking without being against someone. So I do thank the learned Attorney-General for taking the attitude he has taken.

Mr. Tiffany: I should like to put this position to the Attorney-General, as a possibility which might arise in my own constituency. The Liberal Party might run a series of meetings prior to an election incurring certain expenses. What

happens in regard to those expenses? What is the position if a little group of a party incurs expenses in an election without the express approval of the party? Suppose, for instance, the Liberal Party incurs expenses either in support of a Labour Party candidate, whom they like, or in support of a Tory Party candidate, which is a very hypothetical case, without the knowledge or consent of the agent of the candidates concerned, what would be the position under that situation?

Mr. Nicholson: I agree that it is proper to resist this Amendment, but if such a group holds political meetings, which unfortunate candidate will be liable for the expenses?

The Attorney-General: It does not follow that either candidate will be charged with the expenses. The persons who incur the expenses in a situation of that kind will commit an offence. That is the effect of the provision as it stands.

Mr. Nicholson: Suppose there is a vegetarian political party, and they take advantage of the large crowds attending the market in a town, and set up a platform to run some sort of a pretence candidate, who says, "I am the vegetarian candidate," what then? Is not the position becoming ridiculous?

The Attorney-General: If he is merely propagating the general principles and doctrines of vegetarianism without reference to any particular candidate—

Mr. Nicholson: He might be supporting the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Attorney-General: —he is doing something which is perfectly legal under the existing law, as is the case quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Tiffany). If the political party are merely giving expression to the political principles to which they adhere without supporting one candidate or the other, the expense of that is perfectly legal. If, however, in the course of propagating the principles of vegetarianism a man in a meeting says, "The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) is a vegetarian and you ought to vote for him at the election," that would be an offence under this Bill. What is not illegal is any kind of political or ethical


propaganda which is not intended to support one candidate or disparage another. That is illegal unless authorised by the agent of the candidate whom it is intended to support.

Mr. Nicholson: If this vegetarian political party recommends its followers to vote for me am I to be charged with the expenses of that under this Subsection, or are they to be proceeded against and, if so, under what Section?

The Attorney-General: Under Subsection (9) of the succeeding Section.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether I would be acting in a legal manner if I recommended the people at an election meeting to support the very clear and acceptable policy of the Communist Party, and then I went on to say, "You will understand that it would be illegal if I advised you to vote for such and such a candidate, and it would be also illegal if I told you that the Tory candidate was a damned liar and should not be supported"?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: That is not a purely hypothetical case coming from the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), for recently he did intervene in a by-election and succeeded both in supporting and disparaging the Socialist candidate in one speech when he said of Harold Nicolson, "He is a bit of a sop, but you had better vote for him."

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: This point which we are now discussing is one which has been part of the election law since 1918, and it arises from the activities of parties, such as the Tariff Reform League, and other organisations, in the early years of this century, which used to go to by-elections and general elections to support Liberal or Conservative candidates, as the case might be, carrying on an intensive campaign for those candidates. But, they said they were not members of either the Liberal or the Conservative Party and, therefore, their expenses could not be charged against the candidate. That is the mischief aimed at by the Clause we have now under discussion and if, in fact, a person goes down to advocate the views of some other political party, he does not incur liability unless he recommends his hearers to vote

for or against one of the candidates at an election.
Hon. Members will agree that it is very necessary that the intervention of outside bodies which purport not to be supporters of candidates but which are, in fact, supporting candidates, should be prohibited from carrying on propaganda during an election. That is the commonsense kind of thing which happens and if a candidate is found out as having some apparently independent organisation in the constituency carrying on a campaign intended to give him votes, he will have, rightly, to include the expenses of these people in his election returns or he will be guilty of an offence. This is a practical proposition which has worked well during the last 30 years, and I hope that the Committee will continue it. All of us, and anyone who has had experience of fighting an election, knows well what is aimed at, and I think this Amendment is something to be excluded from electoral activities.

Amendment negatived.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 39, line 19, to leave out from "agent," to the end of line 21.
This is consequential. It is an Amendment which follows that in line 4, with regard to travelling expenses.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 39, line 22, after "under," to insert "the foregoing provisions of."
This is a simple Amendment, but one which improves the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 39, line 23, after "and," to insert:
the authority received from the election agent shall be annexed to and deemed to form part of the return, and.
This adopts the principle of an earlier Amendment put down on the Order Paper, but which was not moved because, no doubt, it was seen that the Government Amendment was on the Paper. It provides that in the case of a return of expenses by the person authorised to incur expenses by the agent, that return should be accompanied by written evidence of the authorisation.

Mr. Grimston: This meets the point of the previous Amendment we had on the


Paper and I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 39, line 27, after "under," insert "the foregoing provisions of."—[Mr. Grimston.]

In line 33, after "expenses," insert "included therein."—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 39, line 34, to leave out from first "section," to the end of line 41.
The words proposed to be left out by this Amendment relate to the supplying of particulars of expenses to the election agent. On consideration it does not seem that this is necessary because the election expenses with which we are concerned are in fact going to be paid by the election agent and must be so paid by virtue of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act. If he must pay them he must have particulars and there is no need for further provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 40, line 42, at end, add:
(11) Section forty of the corrupt practices Act (which provides a longer time for presenting an election petition, where an illegal practice is alleged) shall apply to any corrupt practice under this section as if it were an illegal practice."—[Mr. Younger.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Nicholson: I apologise to the Committee but I want to ask the Home Secretary a question about the matter of the intervention of outside parties in an election. If, for example, an outside party intervenes in a by-election and there is suspicion that they have, either intentionally or unintentionally, influenced their members to vote for a particular candidate, am I right in understanding that their election expenses will be charged to the candidate they have recommended, or will they be proceeded against under Subsection (9) which does prevent outside parties from taking part in a by-election?

The Attorney-General: I hope so. I hope I have made it clear that under Subsection (9) if any outside party comes

in and incurs expense in that way designed to support one candidate or disparage another, that party will commit an offence under the Subsection.

Mr. Nicholson: Who will be proceeded against?

The Attorney-General: The person who incurs the expense.

Mr. Nicholson: Who would proceed against him?

The Attorney-General: That would be the duty of the police or the prosecuting authority. No doubt it would be possible for the party which considered itself aggrieved to initiate proceedings but it is clear there will be no question of expenses being charged against any particular party unless there is collusion, aiding, or abetting within the words of Subsection (9).

Mr. N. Macpherson: There is one question I want to ask arising out of proviso (ii) to Subsection (1). I want to know whether that in any way affects the conveyance of persons to the poll by transport? I take it that with a view to saving petrol, apart from anything else, it might be desirable to preserve that process. For example, people may assist friends or relatives to go to the polling station. I wonder if that is in any way affected by this proviso.

Mr. Gallacher: I hope very much that the Home Secretary and others responsible will reconsider this Clause. Before dealing with the point I have particularly in mind I should like to make reference to a suggestion which is often made, that somehow or another organised disturbances are made at election meetings nowadays; and the impression given is that that is something new in the experience of this country. It is further suggested that some parties pay hecklers to go to meetings for the purpose of creating disturbances. From my long experience I am absolutely positive that the Communist Party, any more than the Labour Party, has never, under any circumstances, expended money for the purpose of creating disturbances at election meetings. But nobody could say that about the Tory Party. Before there ever was a Labour Party or Communist Party the Tories were tearing Liberal Party meetings to pieces in this country. One of the worst demonstrations


that ever happened—as I have pointed out before—was against the late Lloyd George, when he had to be slipped out of the back door of the Birmingham Town Hall—otherwise a Tory mob would have torn him to pieces; they would have killed him. That was a Tory mob.
I have the feeling that this Clause is an extreme and a somewhat disgusting example of kicking away the ladder on which the Government climbed to fame. There would never have been a Labour Party or a Labour Government had it not been for the auxiliary forces which assisted at elections. Before ever the Labour Party had substantial affiliations—even from the trades union movement, which they have now—not one Labour candidate stood at an election but he was supported by money from housing committees. Many hon. Members will remember that in the old days housing committees expended large sums of money on assisting Labour candidates. They were not Labour Party committees but housing committees—in the early days of the movement. And not only was there support from housing committees; but how many Labour candidates in the early days received support from, and got into Parliament here through money spent by, the Co-operative movement, independently of the election expenses of the candidate and money spent by the trades union movement and trades union branch and district committees? That was money spent quite independently of the candidate's expenses; money given to build up Labour Party support and to assist Labour candidates. Is that not true? Will anyone on the Labour Party Front Bench deny it?
In the early days of the movement the Labour Party was built up with the powerful support of the auxiliaries. In this country a feature of Parliamentary activity has been the work within constituencies of all kinds of groups, who verbally express their support and spend money. In my early, youthful days, before I got led into the Socialist movement and set out on a political path, I was in a temperance movement. In election campaigns that temperance movement spent a lot of money, supporting candidates who would give pledges to further the movement's aims. That was a common practice. All kinds of groups and organisations acted within constituencies. Now all that is to be stopped. Why?

The Government have got into a position of power, and maybe they are afraid that if these auxiliary movements are encouraged, other parties may make progress and develop. Is that the idea? I cannot understand why, from the Labour point of view, such legislation should be necessary regarding meetings. In a constituency where there is an election it is easy enough to run public meetings without incurring expenses by a party like ours. We are not affected by that. We can run a public meeting in any constituency where there is a by-election and there will not be a penny of expenditure incurred in practice, but there are others who want to spend money.

11.0 p.m.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is repeating the arguments which he addressed to the Committee on an Amendment which has been rejected and he is not entitled to take up the time of the Committee by repeating the same arguments again.

Mr. Gallacher: I will leave that and go on to a further argument. There is the question of the 10s. expenditure. We are told that if some one sends a telegram for ten shillings, that is all right, but if whole groups send telegrams for 10s. each, that is all wrong because it is obviously concerted. Who can prove that someone has concerted it? Suppose a daily newspaper—I will not mention any daily newspaper—on the day before the election, says the candidate is expecting a shoal of telegrams? Is there anything wrong if the daily paper says that the candidate is expecting a shoal of telegrams? What is wrong with that? How is it possible to accuse anybody of corrupt practices because of something of that kind? Let me take another example, on which I would like some information in view of the fact that there is so much stringency needed to keep auxiliary bodies in a particular constituency from expressing their views.
How is it going to apply to the case of Scotland? I do not know if the Secretary of State for Scotland can deal with this, or whether the Attorney-General can do so. At the last Election, as in previous elections, the Catholic Bishops in Scotland sent out a letter—I do not know how much it cost to send


out the letter; it would cost so much for paper, and so much for stamps—which was read from every pulpit in my constituency, as in some others. The letter said that Catholics could vote for the Tory or vote for the Labour candidate but they would go plump down to Hell if they voted for the Communists. I would like to be told if that is going to be included in the expenses of the Tory and Labour candidates or if it is going to be treated as a corrupt practice. I am not against it. I consider that they or any other organisation have the right to express their views at an election however unpalatable they may be to me or anybody else. Electors in this country have always had that right. If there are auxiliary bodies or groups of any kind within a constituency they should be allowed as groups to express their views. What is the situation that could arise from this? There is a group—

The Chairman: I have already informed the hon. Member that he is not entitled to reiterate arguments already addressed to the Committee of which this is part. I must ask him either to address fresh arguments to the Committee on some other matter or to resume his seat.

Mr. Gallacher: The argument I am going to use now is not connected with any Amendment to which my name was put—nor was it used before. In a constituency an individual has the right to express an opinion that a particular candidate should be supported. Six individuals, a dozen individuals, have the right to express a view that a particular candidate should be supported, but if those individuals as a group express their opinion through a leaflet or any medium which costs a few shillings—

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is again raising the argument which he addressed to the Committee previously. I cannot allow him to do that. He must address himself to other matters or resume his seat.

Mr. Tiffany: On a point of Order. Does not the Amendment deal with political parties?

The Chairman: As I understand the argument of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) he is using precisely

the arguments he addressed to the Committee previously. We cannot have a matter re-hashed time and time again.

Mr. Gallacher: All right. I do not agree with the Ruling, but will accept it, and will leave that point and take another. I want to ask the Attorney-General whether I can go into a constituency in which there is a by-election and with a piece of chalk—which I can borrow from any school teacher—start chalking the streets on behalf of a particular candidate? I want to know where we stand because chalking is important in the activities of various organisations in this country. There are few places in which there are by-laws against chalking.

Mr. Shurmer (Birmingham, Sparkbrook): We have it in Birmingham, anyway.

Mr. Gallacher: That may be so. There is another thing. We have had presented here on one occasion a Bill, in which the Secretary of State for Scotland had certain responsibility, which brought up the matter of fly-posting, and we were informed that nothing would be done to interfere with the right of fly-posting. I want to know how fly-posting is affected by this. If fly-posting takes place during an election, will the police be allowed to interfere with those who carry it on?
There are many other matters which arise in connection with this, of course, but again I say that I feel it very badly that such a Clause should be introduced, and reiterate once again that it very strongly gives the impression that it is cutting away the ladder on which the Government rose to power.

Mrs. Middleton: I would like to put one question to the Attorney-General. It is concerning the matter of election questionnaires. One of the phenomena of modern elections is the circularisation of candidates with election questionnaires. Afterwards the replies to these questionnaires are often published in the Press, and sometimes advice is given publicly to the members of the organisation submitting the questionnaire that votes should be given to certain candidates. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether that comes within the ruling of this Clause?

Mr. Ede: If, as a result of answers to a questionnaire, expenses are incurred


in circularising the result of the questionnaire with a recommendation that certain candidates shall be voted for, or that steps shall be taken to prevent the election of one of the candidates whose answers might be deemed to be unsatisfactory, that is an expense which clearly comes within the statute. May I say with regard to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)—

Mr. G. Porter: Before the Home Secretary leaves that point might I say that he mentioned 10s. Surely if it costs only one shilling it could be regarded as concerted action.

Mr. Ede: I thank my hon. Friend for confirming what I have already said. With regard to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife, I would say that what we are doing here is to re-enact the law as it has existed since 1918, and which was aimed at preventing what had occurred during the first 18 years of this century. Then there were bodies attached to the great political parties who went down to constituencies and spent considerable sums of money on the grounds that they were not supporting the candidates as they were not party organisations. It was, therefore, felt necessary to take steps to prevent this, and the experience we have had since 1918 has amply vindicated the alterations made in the law. I do not think any of the criticisms made by the hon. Member for West Fife are valid, or ought to persuade the Committee not to add the Clause to the Bill.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an answer to my question about motor cars?

Mr. Ede: It is illegal to hire a vehicle—a private car—to take voters to the poll. It is illegal to hire a taxi systematically to take voters to the poll, but a person is entitled to take a taxi and go himself. He is also entitled to take his wife, and it has long been a matter of argument among agents and those learned in the law, how far he may proceed to take other ladies with him or any other persons not his close relatives.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Would the Home Secretary enlarge on the reply he has just given to the hon. Lady the

Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) about the questionnaire? Some of these societies are in the habit of circularising every candidate throughout the country on such matters as vivisection, temperance, Sunday closing and, if I may mention it, Friendly Societies. They then publish a list of names and say, "Here are 272 candidates who take our view and their candidature is recommended." What is the situation where the headquarters in London have collected the replies to the questionnaires, have sifted and sorted through them and have sent out a list of candidates to be supported?

Mr. Ede: I have had that experience in the course of my electioneering when I answered a questionnaire, and to my surprise, I was selected as a suitable person. My election agent took the view, and so informed the society which wished to circularise its members in the constituency that before they did so they must obtain his consent, which he would be ready to give them.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Nicholson: Subsection (9) would apply?

Mr. Ede: If they did not, Subsection (9) would apply.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: On the subject of motor cars, it is not a question of hired cars, but of private cars. Suppose an election agent of any party persuades 50 of his candidate's supporters to use their own cars at their own expense—and in a country constituency that expense might come to more than 10s. a supporter—to convey supporters to the polls on election day, would that not be an illegal transaction within the meaning of the Clause?

Mr. Ede: Quite frankly, I should not have thought so. However, there is a new Clause on the Order Paper—(Transport facilities at elections)—in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy), dealing with the question of the use of motor cars at election times, and it may be that certain action taken on that new Clause may remove this from the field of speculation altogether.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Popplewell.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — GAS (SPECIAL ORDERS)

Resolved:
That the Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power, under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Wallingford, which was presented on 17th March and published, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power, under the Gas Undertakings Acts 192o to 1934, on the application of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the County Borough of Wallasey, which was presented on 8th March and published, be approved."—[Mr. Robens.]

Orders of the Day — PETROL (NEW RATIONING SYSTEM)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Osborne: I apologise to the House for keeping it at this late hour, but I wish to raise a matter of some considerable importance, especially to people living in rural areas. I am grateful to the Minister of Fuel and Power for coming at this late hour to listen and reply to my remarks. I wish to draw his attention to the injustices that are felt, either rightly or wrongly, by many people with regard to the new basic or standard petrol ration. I understand from the Table that I am not entitled to discuss the black market or the licence rebate, but that I shall be in Order in discussing the standard allocation.
I want to ask the Minister if he will reconsider, in the light of the facts I wish to put before him, the position of the people who have been getting E and S coupons, many of whom feel that they are suffering an injustice. I am sure that that is the last thing that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to happen. When he announced the new scheme on 8th April, this is what the Minister said:

Those now receiving supplementary petrol equal to or exceeding the 'standard' ration will receive in total no more petrol coupons than before; and I must make it plain that no appeals against the application of this rule in individual cases can be considered.
It is against that I am asking the Minister to think again. He went on to say:
I realise, of course, that this will seem rather hard to some.
Later on, the Minister said:
I do not expect for one moment that these arrangements will satisfy everyone.
I want to show him he was dead right. Then he said this:
I said that I could not consider appeals against the principle of taking the standard allowances from recipients of supplementary allowances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1948; Vol. 449, cc. 368, 369, 372.]
I want, if I can, to bring some extra evidence to him and ask him to think again.
I would like to quote to the Minister what "The Times" said of his new scheme in an editorial on 9th April:
The intention behind the scheme is good, but it will mean hardship for some motorists. Those who already get supplementary petrol at the standard rate or more will have to do their pleasure driving out of what they have been given for business reasons. Mr. Gaitskell did not attempt to defend this anomaly. Until now a sense of grievance has been playing havoc with general standards of honesty.
It is that sense of injustice I plead with him to try to remove. The new scheme has undoubtedly removed some injustice, to which "The Times" referred, but it has left many people still feeling that sense of injustice.
The "Daily Telegraph" on the 17th of this month put it this way, and I would call the Minister's attention to the word commonly used—"injustice." Almost everyone who writes to Members of this House and to the newspapers, and who writes in a reasonable and responsible way, uses this term.
Attention has already been drawn to the many injustices and anomalies arising from the new petrol rationing scheme. The grievance of voluntary workers calls for special mention. Take, for example, the case of a Territorial officer. For the sake of his duties he has applied for and received E coupons. Now as the new scheme is administered he will be faced with the alternatives of either abandoning his work, to the detriment of the public interest, or of using his basic ration in its service. If he adopts the second course he


will have little or no petrol for his own purposes. The same will apply to many other people engaged in voluntary public work.
I am sure Members on both sides will agree with the "Daily Telegraph" when it says:
This is surely a paradoxical reward for public spirit.
I hope the Minister will look at it from that angle. The "Daily Telegraph" goes on to say:
The person who does no work of this kind enjoys the whole benefit of the basic ration for his own private pleasure, whereas the person who does such work sacrifices not only his time, but also the effective use of his car.
The newspaper then makes this appeal to the Minister, which I underline:
The cost in extra petrol would be practically insignificant and Mr. Gaitskell may he urged to revise the excessive rigidity of his scheme.
I raise this matter tonight for the purpose of asking him if he could do that?
In further support of my plea, I will quote a resolution passed on 16th April by the Executive Council of the National Union of Commercial Travellers. It
expressed strong disapproval of the unfair terms of the new petrol rationing scheme. The deduction of standard rates from the present inadequate supplementary allowances is an injustice"—
the same word again, the Minister will notice—
to E and S coupon holders who need petrol for their livelihood and will be deprived of pleasure motoring granted to the public. We strongly urge the Government to reconsider the scheme and restore the supplementary allowances in full.
In addition to that, I should like, as a Member of the House, to give the Minister extracts from three letters I have received from my own rural constituency. I feel that this cut affects the people in the widely scattered rural areas more than those who live in the towns, especially those in the rural areas of Lincolnshire, where there are great distances between the villages. The bus services are not good, and the railway services even worse. It is essential, if these legitimate requests cannot be met generally, that at least they should be looked at favourably from the countryman's point of view.
The first letter I shall read comes from a commercial traveller, who says:
I would like to draw attention to what I think is a real injustice.

The same word again, I would ask the Minister to note.
I am a commercial traveller, and my area is across North Lincolnshire. When the basic petrol allowance was cut, my S allowance also was cut by 10 per cent., thus making it impossible for me to cover my ground satisfactorily for the firm. I had been hoping"—
he is not the only one; many people of this class had been hoping—
that the standard allowance would be in addition to the supplementary, as our basic petrol was used to enable us to do our job.
I am sure that the Minister realises the justice of this claim.
There can be no accumulation of petrol coupons for a holiday in our case, as all goes on the work of the firm. We do not feel like paying railway fares for holidays with our cars resting in the garage. That seems useless expenditure.
He appeals to me, and says:
Will you please do what you can to air this injustice in the House of Commons?
Then I have another letter from another type of constituent—the country parson, who says:
I get a small quantity of petrol for conducting Divine Service at two churches, for visiting, and for going to the various hospitals, all of which are a considerable distance away. It can hardly be maintained that this petrol is used for pleasure purposes, and yet, if I do my duty, I shall have no petrol for pleasure purposes at all. I hope you will press for a definite E allowance, independent of the basic ration.
That is from a parson who has a big area to cover. His is a very different problem from the parson working in the centre of a town.
The third letter I shall read is from a constituent who is a doctor specialist, and who says—and I want to emphasise this:
I am afraid I was completely honest in my returns and never used the car for anything but my work.
He goes on to say:
The one bit of pleasure we had last summer was getting into the country at the week-end, and on my present allowance I must either go without the car for my work,"—
which would be a bad thing for the people in my constituency—
which is impossible, or stay in the house at the week-end. So I would be obliged for your help in this matter.
I am putting to the Minister that those who have E and S coupons who were


honest are suffering because of their honesty. As one of my constituents said to me, it appears that honesty does not pay under Socialism. If we are dishonest, we get away with it. The important thing, from the point of view of the Minister's own department is this: that if he is claiming that those constituents of mine who have been getting E and S coupons can squeeze something out of these allowances for their own pleasure, that means that they have been getting more than they should have had before.
But I see that the Minister is looking at the clock. I want to hear what he has to say, so I will cut out of my remarks other points which I wished to put to him, and I will ask him this one question. Since he made his statement we have been pleased to learn that Marshall Aid is definitely coming to this country. Can I ask the Minister how much extra petrol he expects to get under Marshall Aid? Will that make any difference to the scheme he has put before us? If so will he meet the legitimate grievances of those people who are looking to him for a better deal?

10.30 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I apologise to hon. Members who wish to speak, but I am rather anxious to make an adequate statement on this subject, which I know is of considerable interest to hon. Members in all parts of the House. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) for raising the matter, and for the moderate and reasonable way in which he put his points. I should like to tell him at once that I appreciate—indeed I rather expected it—that many feel a sense of injustice.
He in particular will appreciate that with the dollar position as it now is we could not afford to spend any more on importing petrol. That point was generally accepted in the House as a whole and was made by speaker after speaker throughout the Budget Debate. Unfortunately Marshall Aid will not make any difference whatever. It simply means that we can continue importing whereas if we had not got Marshall Aid we should have been in a very parlous state indeed. The fact that oil happens to be one of the commodities included under it does not

make any difference at all. It is unfortunate, but there it is.
Most of us would agree that the situation existing before I made my announcement to the House was unsatisfactory in many ways. The fact that a million people have to lay up their cars or motor bikes is something in itself none of us approves, nor must one overlook the fact that some people have, after all, bought their cars specifically and solely for the purpose of using them say on their holidays. That is a point which hon. Members have put to me from time to time.
There is an admitted difficulty in drawing lines in administering this petrol rationing system. We have heard talk on both sides of the House about pleasure motoring. Some have said there is no such thing as pleasure motoring, as I think was asserted by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in the Debate which we had on this matter last October. Probably the fact is something like this, that at one extreme there is something which might be called pure pleasure motoring or joy riding, and at the other extreme there is motoring for pure business purposes. However, there is an enormous range between the two. I am bound to admit that some of the million people who were obliged to lay up their cars and motor bikes were people who in the first part of their mileage would not be pleasure motoring in the pure sense of the term. They might have used their cars for going to their work, for instance, which while not absolutely essential was of great assistance to them. Our regional petroleum officers have had to draw the line, and it has been difficult for them. That is an unfortunate feature of the situation as it now is, and another criticism which I might make of the present system is that it is extremely hard to enforce the law which restricts the use of petrol to certain purposes. The police have done their best under very hard conditions, but it is difficult to do and that is appreciated by everyone.
For these reasons, I felt that it was necessary to see whether within the existing dollar expenditure and without any increased consumption we could make some improvement. The House will be aware of how the black market came into the picture. I will not go into that now, because it would be out of Order. We


estimated we would get 100,000 tons by stopping the black market, and another 20,000 tons by cutting down on supplementary allowances in certain cases. I cannot honestly say there is much chance of more than that. The total of the supplementary allowances cost us about 800,000 tons a year in petrol, and it is very unlikely that more than 100,000 tons is coming through the black market in addition to the 800,000. One in eight is a pretty high figure, and, though it would be obviously attractive to hope that we could get much more, I cannot, I am afraid, expect it.
Taking that 120,000 tons, what would have been the position if we had first re-distributed it in the old way as a basic ration? It would have enabled each motorist to get about eight miles a week. That would have been farcical. Nobody would have licensed his car on that basis; I am referring, of course, to those motorists who had laid up their vehicles. If that concession had been made, it would have been greeted with a howl of protest, regarded as derisory and there would have been great indignation. To those with supplementary allowances, it would not have made much difference; there would have been no great advantage, although they would have had their eight miles "free" and it would have been easier for them at any particular moment to have arranged for the basic, or standard, ration to be used at their convenience.
We felt that a distribution of what was available on these lines would not have been a practicable proposition, and we decided that the extra petrol should go to those with cars laid up. Anything much less than 90 or 100 miles a month, which the standard ration will allow, would be too little for them. It may be suggested that, perhaps, 60 to 75 miles should he allowed, but that would only have meant an addition to the supplementary allowance holders of about 10 miles, there being about twice as much needed for supplementary allowance holders as for those who have cars laid up. Therefore, as I have said, we came to the conclusion that the extra petrol would have to go to those with cars laid up, but we provided that the others, the supplementary allowance holders, should get the standard allowance, their supplementary allowance being reduced by the same amount. As

a result they have one great advantage in that they have some freedom, and it means that there is no more of that business of not being able to turn two hundred yards off the road to visit a friend or some person. That, we all agree, was a particularly tiresome restriction, which we are glad to be rid of.
I appreciate that many people think that this is unfair. My answer is that we cannot honestly, bearing in mind that no more dollars can be spent, give on the one hand sufficient to allow those with cars laid up to bring them out again and to give extra petrol in addition to freedom to those with supplementary allowances. We know that there is the man who uses his car for business, and who claims that he has nothing for pleasure motoring. But I think that people will agree that there is a lot of advantage gained from these allowances. There are hundreds of thousands of motorists in London who, without breaking the law, find they can, if they wish, take their wives to the shops on the way to business. They can also take them to the theatre on the way back, and it cannot be denied that this is something of benefit. Even with no basic allowance, they get that advantage, but with the additional freedom, the advantage is the greater. Everybody may not be in that position, but a great many people are.
Then there is the possibility of a certain amount of economy in the use of petrol for business purposes. So long as people are not going to get an advantage from that they won't try to. If they know they are going to be free to use petrol it is very often possible to make an arrangement. The kind of arrangements I have in mind are arrangements for giving each other lifts. That could be done. It probably will be done, though it is not a thing the Regional Petroleum Officer can take into account in making allocations. Petrol rationing is not an exact science as hon. Members know. It is impossible to fit exactly the amount of petrol to the needs of each individual. One has only to look at the history of the changes made in the maximum supplementary allowances to see how there have been variations.
Commercial travellers have been mentioned. I would have thought they get a fairly reasonable allowance—perhaps ten times as much as the standard allow-


ance—and that they should be able to get a good deal of convenience and pleasure motoring out of that in combination with their business. I am sure the majority will be able to do so. Then there are the doctors who are already in a very strong position compared with others because we had to make special concessions to enable them to use their cars, even when no basic or standard ration was available, for social purposes, because they may have to be "on call." That alone is a considerable advantage.
So the fact is that no-one is worse off under the new arrangement and it is certain that the overwhelming majority of people will be better off. Some will not be. I can see that. I know the case of close relatives of my own who will be at one end of the scale, who are closely rationed on a mileage basis and who cannot get much more convenience out of the extra freedom now possible. But I had to ask myself this question: Is the fact that these people are relatively in not such a good position a reason for withdrawing petrol from the others? I do not think it is a good reason and I do not think if it were put to them they would think so either. I wish I could respond to the appeal of the hon. Member but I am limited by the dollar position and the amount of petrol available. I cannot depart from the position that there can be no appeals against this matter for the reasons I have stated: that if I said one may appeal in certain cases, there would be an avalanche and every one would appeal and it would be impossible to draw the line.
As to what prospects there are I can only say this. Some have been saying that there is a chance for the standard ration to be increased in the near future. I must categorically deny that. I do not want people's hopes raised unfairly and unnecessarily in this matter. So far as I can see there is no prospect of any change for the standard ration this summer. I cannot tell what the position will be after that. If extra petrol becomes available, if the savings from the black market are larger, or the dollar position improves and we are more favourably situated, I can promise the House I would consult the Advisory Committee I have set up as to how best the extra petrol could be distributed. They, in any case,

will be going into the whole question of supplementaries and how one could make changes. But if they propose changes I must warn the House that they will not be pleasant for everybody. If there is only so much petrol available and they say that some has got to be taken from someone else then, if it has got to be taken, somebody is going to squeal. That is a very big job and I cannot expect results, at any rate, for some months.
I appreciate the feelings many people have but I am sure the House will agree that in the circumstances this was the right decision. In fact I have heard of no other alternative. We consulted the motoring organisations throughout and they agreed, although they would have liked more. So would we. They are entitled to press for more but, granted that there is only so much petrol available, I consider that this was the only reasonable way of dealing with the matter.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I am very glad to have an opportunity, even at this last moment, of saying on behalf of the organisation I represent, the Executive Committee of the Automobile Association, that we have never agreed to these particular proposals at all. We do not approve of them; we do not think they are good; and we shall not rest until we get them completely changed.

Mr. Gaitskell: Mr. Gibson, the representative of the Automobile Association, in my presence gave an entirely different account of the matter. I can only say, I understood that both he and Captain Phillips, who represents the R.A.C., were fully authorised by their associations to take the line they did.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: At this late hour I do not want to pursue with the Minister a private and domestic quarrel on this matter across the Table. I certainly do not want it to go out, or to be thought that I was seeking to imply, that the Minister was misrepresenting anything which had been said to him. I think there is genuine ground for the misunderstanding which probably has arisen. But at the same time I should like it to go out that at least we of the Automobile Association are not in favour of the scheme as it has been proposed.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the hon. Member tell me how he would distribute the same amount of petrol?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I should be delighted, but not in the one remaining minute.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: When the hon. Member says "we of the Automobile Association," does he mean the Executive Committee or the governing body of that Association?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Yes, I do. Perhaps I could ask the Minister a question on one particular aspect, to which he can reply when we have a full-dress Debate on this subject—because I think this is only a "curtain raiser." I refer particularly to commercial petrol. The right hon. Gentleman referred to getting a saving of 10 per cent, on the supplementary petrol in order to find the necessary pool for this increase. I think he will find that that was the term he used. I want to be quite clear whether he includes in that the 10 per cent. which I understand he is hoping to get from the commercial side as well. If so, we want to know why he is making an arbitrary reduction of 10 per cent. on the commercial side. If previously they had only sufficient petrol on their allocation, how

is it that they will now be able to manage with 10 per cent. less? We feel that the whole scheme for a percentage allocation to commercial vehicles is unnecessary and should be done away with in the interests of economising in petrol on the commercial side.
Finally, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give us more facts and figures. The feeling is that until, by facts and figures, he can convince the people who have been deprived of the petrol which they feel they ought to have, they will feel he has something up his sleeve—something he is trying to hide from them. I only say that is the feeling; I do not say the right hon. Gentleman has anything up his sleeve. But I do beg him to put all his cards on the table and let the public have the full facts, information and figures, so that they may judge and see that his allocation is a correct one.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.